THE  RECORD 

OF 

J.OHN  K.  HACKETT, 

As  Recorder, 

FOUNDED   UPON    OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS. 


To  the  Citizens  of  New  York : 

As  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the  office  of 
Recorder  should  be  filled  by  an  upright  Judge,  against  whose 
reputation  no  accusation  could  justly  be  brought,  the  following 
extracts  frorn  the  record  of  John  K.  Hackett,  while  Recorder, 
should  be  read  by  all  thinking  men,  desiring  to  know  whether 
or  not  they  should  support  him  at  the  approaching  election  : 

WHAT  WHEELER  H.  PECKAM  THINKS  OF  RECORDER  HACKETT. 

Mr.  Wheeler  H.  Peckham  is  not  a  politician,  but  a  lawyi  r 
of  high  standing.  He  has  been  from,  the  first,  associated  with 
Charles  O' Conor  in  all  the  suits  and  legal  proceedings  against 
the  late  Ring.  He  is  familiar  with  all  the  devices  to  which  they 
have  resorted  to  avoid  punishment,  and  the  various  members  of 
the  judiciary  upon  whom  they  have  relied  for  aid  in  this  respect, 
and  his  opinion  in  regard  to  the  character  of  a  judge  is  there- 
fore entitled  to  great  weight. 


CLASSICS 

)  f  'r 

'  \i%  .is 

wis* 

2 

In  answer  to  a  request  that  he  would  state  his  opinion  of 
Becorder  Hackett,  Mr.  Peckham  wrote  the  following  letter, 
which  was  printed  in  the  newspapers  of  October  11,  1875,  and 

io  which  no  reply  has  ever  been  published  : 

29  WAiiL  Stbeet,  New  Yobk,  October  11,  1875. 

Deab  Sib, — I  have  your  letter  of  this  date  asking  information  as  to  the  action 
&f  Recorder  Hackett  on  the  occasion  of  the  first  trial  of  Mayor  Hall,  and  in 
jespect  to  the  indictment  of  Peter  B.  Sweeny,  Hugh  Smith  and  others.  I  think 
that  as  a  delegate  to  a  nominating  convention  you  are  entitled  to  know  the  faots. 

The  first  trial  of  Mayor  Hall  was  in  the  Court  of  Sessions,  Judg^Daly, 
€hief,  Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas  presiding.  Mayor  Hall  had  previously  pub- 
Icly  stated  that  owing  to  his  personal  friendly  relations  with  Recorder  Hackett 
it  would  not  be  advisable  for  that  magistrate  to  preside  at  his  (Hall's)  trial.  The 
Mayor  was  defended  by  numerous  and  very  able  counsel,  among  whom  may  be 
mentioned  Mr.  Stoughton,  Mr.  Burrill,  Mr.  James  M.  Smith,  Mr.  Shafer,  the 
late  Mr.  Buckley  and  others.  Mr.  Tremain,  Mr.  Clinton  and  myself  appeared  for 
ihe  prosecution.  The  District  Attorney,  owing  to  his  personal  relations  with  Mr. 
Halt  did  not  appear.  After  the  trial  had  been  pending  some  weeks  a  juror  died. 
Meantime  the  succeeding  regular  term  of  the  Court  of  Sessions  had  been  opened, 
Recorder  Hackett  presiding,  The  trial  at  the  time  of  the  juror's  death  had  devel- 
oped a  very  serious  aspect  for  Mr.  Hall.  A  question  then  arose  as  to  the  power 
©f  Mr.  Justice  Daly  to  empanel  a  new  jury  and  proceed  with  the  trial.  This 
question  was  partly  argued  and  an  adjournment  taken  to  a  future  day,  when  it 
was  to  be  decided,  whether  with  or  without  further  discussion  I  do  not  now 
yemember.  Pending  that  adjournment  the  point  was  made  in  some  case  in 
Recorder  Hackett's  branch  of  the  court  that  his  branch  was  illegal  owing  to  the 
sitting  of  Judge  Daly's  branch.  The  Recorder  not  only  ruled  that  his  branch  was 
&gal,  but,  as  I  remember,  went  further  and  stated  that  Judge  Daly's  was  illegal 
On  the  meeting  of  Judge  Daly's  branch  on  the  adjourned  day,  Judge  Daly  de- 
clined to  consider  the  question  on  its  merits,  and  saw  that  after  the  decision  of 
Recorder  Hackett  his  only  course  was  to  follow  it,  and  he  did  so,  discharging  the 
jury  and  ending  the  trial. 

What  Judge  Daly's  decision  on  the  merits  would  have  been  I  do  not  know. 
"Whether  Recorder  Hackett  in  making  the  decision  he  did  and  to  the  extent  he  did, 
was  moved  by  any  desire  to  influence  the  action  of  Judge  Daly,  I  have  no  informa- 
tion other  than  that  of  the  public.  What  did  influence  his  action  was  at  the  time 
very  clear. 

As  to  the  Sweeny  indictment  the  facts  are  these  : 

Sweeny,  Smith,  Woodward  and  Tweed  were  jointly  indicted  for  a  conspir- 
acy by  the  Grand  Jury  popularly  known  as  the  Bedford  Grand  Jury.  In  the  fall 
of  1872  a  motion  was  made  by  the  counsel  for  Hugh  Smith  to  quash  that  indict- 
ment. The  motion  was  heard  by  Recorder  Hackett.  It  was  made  on  the  ground 
that  the  Bedford  Grand  Jury  had  no  jurisdiction  to  find  bills,  and  also  on  some 
other  grounds  not  material  to  specify.  On  the  hearing  of  the  motion,  it  was 
agreed  by  counsel  that  only  the  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Grand  Jury 
should  be  discussed,  and  that  other  questions  should  be  reserved  until  after  the 
decision  of  that — the  reason  being  that  that  question  affected  many  other  bills 
lhat  had  been  found  by  that  Grand  Jury.  That  agreement  was  carried  out,  and  no 
©ther  question  was  argued.  Recorder  Hackett  granted  the  motion  and  quashed 
the  indictment  on  the  ground  of  want  of  jurisdiction  of  the  Grand  Jury,  and  also 
on  the  further  ground  oi  want  of  proper  allegations  in  the  bill  as  to  the  defendant, 
Smith.  He  gave  as  his  reason  for  the  first  ground  the  decision  of  the  General 
Term  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Greenthal  case,  that  the  November  term,  1871, 
of  the  Court  of  General  Sessions,  was  illegally  extended  into  the  subsequent 
cjonths,  and  that  he  was  bound  by  that  decision.  On  the  argument  oi  the 
motion  that  caso  had  been  referred  to.  No  opinion  had  been  given  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  General  Term,  and  I  had  stated  to  the  Recorder  that  it  was 
impossible  to  argue  as  to  what  was  decided  in  a  case  where  no  opinion  had 
bet  n  written,  and  1  requested  the  Recorder  to  consult  with  the  Supremo  Court 
Judges  and  ascertain  what  they  had  really  decided. 


3 


I  have  subsequently  ascertained  that  the  Greenthal  case  was  decided  by 
consent,  as  being  governed  by  the  Burns  case,  and  that  in  neither  case  had  the 
Supreme  Court  decided  that  the  Bedford  Grand  Jury  was  illegal.  The  same 
question  was  subsequently  directly  raised  before  the  Oyer  and  Terminer,  Judge 
Daniels,  I  think,  presiding,  and  decided  adversedly  to  the  ruling  of  the  Recorder. 
The  other  ground  upon  which  the  Recorder  based  his  decision  had  never  been 
raised  by  the  defendant's  counsel,  and  had  never  been  argued  before  the  Recorder, 
and  all  points  except  that  as  to  the  Grand  Jury  being  expressedly  reserved,  the 
Recorder  had  no  right  to  raise  or  consider  any  other  point  He  did  so,  how- 
ever, and  also  did  it  in  very  offensive  terms. 

His  action  in  that  respect  was  the  occasion  of  a  letter  to  the  New  York 
limes  by  Mr.  Henry  C.  Allen  and  myself.  I  thought  at  the  time  that  the  Recorder 
intended  by  using  such  language  to  make  a  covert  attack  upon  myself,  and  to 
bring  such  discredit  as  he  could  upon  those  actively  moving  to  punish  publio 
crimos.  So  far  as  any  reference  of  personal  intent  to  myself  was  concerned  the 
Recorder,  in  a  letter  to  me  a  short  time  afterwards,  disavowed  it  in  very  courteous 
and  complimentary  terms,  and  I  accepted  and  do  accept  his  statement.  The 
matter,  however,  had  this  consequence  :  In  the  letter  I  published  Mr.  Allen  and 
myself  insisted  that  the  indictment  was  not  open  to  the  criticism  Recorder 
Hackett  had  seen  fit  to  make  upon  it,  and  avowed  our  intention  to  have  a  record 
made  up  and  to  take  a  writ  of  error.  Our  letter  with  that  avowal  appeared  on 
the  morning  of  the  31st  December,  1872,  the  last  day  of  the  official  term  of  Mr. 
District-Attorney  Garvin,  whom  Mr.  Phelps  was  to  succeed  the  next  day. 

On  that  31st  December,  1872,  Mr.  Garvin  moved  a  nol.  pros,  of  the  whole 
indictment  before  Recorder  Hackett,  and  it  was  granted  and  entered  as  five 
days  preceding,  so  as  to  appear  to  be  done  prior  to  the  publication  of  our  letter. 
This  was  done  without  any  notice  to  or  consultation  with  me,  and  in  face  of  the 
fact  that,  under  the  direction  of  the  Attorney-General,  I  had  theretofore  had 
exclusive  charge  of  all  the  so-called  ring  indictments,  and  that  Judge  Garvin  had 
most  cheerfully  given  me  the  control  of  them,  and  had  himself  taken  no  charge  of 
them  whatever.  When  thereafter,  on  Mr.  Phelps's  accession  to  office,  I  was  about 
to  take  a  writ  of  error,  I  found  that  the  bill  had  been  nol-prossed,  and  as  to  all 
the  defendents  ;  that  is,  Sweeney,  Woodward  and  Tweed,  as  well  as  Smith.  Of 
course  I  have  nb  personal  knowledge  of  the  ante-dating,  but  I  investigated  the 
matter  very  fully  and  thoroughly  at  the  time,  and  have  no  doubt  of  the  fact 
Whether  the  foregoing  facts  afforded  just  ground  for  criticism,  you  and  your 
convention  must  decide.    Yours  truly,  Wheeleb  H.  Peckham. 

Certainly  when  these  facts  are  considered  it  would  appear 
that  the  New  York  Times  showed  a  spirit  of  prophecy  when 
in  its  issue  of  October  5,  1872,  it  said: 

"  Recorder  Hackett's  relations  with  some  of  the  men  to  be  tried  have  been 
too  intimate  a  kind  to  render  it  seemly  that  he  should  preside  in  the  Court  of 
Sessions  when  the  Ring  plunderers  are  at  the  bar. 

"  The  organ  of  the  Ring  intimated  yesterday  that  Recorder  Hackett  would 
probably  insist  upon  maintaining  the  dignity  of  his  Court,  and  refuse  to  sent  the 
indicted  to  a  higher  tribunal.  This  is  precisely  what  Recorder  Hackett  did,  and 
the  co-incidence  is  not  calculated  to  increase  publio  confidence  in  his  fitness  to 
try  the  cases  in  question.  *  *  *  A  new  expose  of  the  Ring  frauds 
would  be  awakened  for  the  interests  of  Sweeny,  Genet,  Field  et  al  on  the  eve  of 
election.  *  *  *  Will  the  people  remember  this  when  the  organ  raises 
its  next  howl  about  pushing  forward  the  Ring  suits  in  a  Court  (Hackett's)  where  no 
honest  man  urishes  to  see  them  tried." 

It  will  be  recollected  that  to  enter  a  noil  pross  upon  an  in- 
dictment, the  consent  of  tJie  Court  was  necessary,  as  well  as  that 
of  the  District  Attorney,  and  to  ante-date  it  required  the  direct 
-connivance  of  Recorder  Hackett. 


4 

Recorder  Hackett  knew  perfectly  well  that  Charles  CV  Con- 
or and  Mr.  Peckham  had  charge  of  the  prosecution  of  these 
indictineuts,  and  that  Garvin  was  the  creature  of  the  accused. 

If  he  had  been  desirous  of  promoting  the  ends  of  justice, 
would  he  not  have  required  that  notice  should  have  been  given 
to  these  representatives  of  the  Attorney  General  before  vacating 
the  indictments  ? 

Is  it  not  plain  that  he  did  not  cause  any  notice  to  be 
given  them  for  the  same  reason  that  he  allowed  his  decision  to 
be  ante  dated;  and  for  the  same  reason  that  he  did  not  consult 
with  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  motion  to  quash 
when  requested  by  Mr.  Peckham, — because  he  loas  anxious  to  al- 
low his  friends  of  the  Ring  to  escape. 

The  Suspension  of  Sentences  by  Recorder  Hackett. — 

District  Attorney  Phelps,  in  his  examination  before  the 
Committee  on  Crime  of  the  Assembly,  was  asked  if  he  knew 
any  legal  authority  authorizing  a  Judge  after  a  conviction  of  an 
offender  to  "  suspend  sentence."  His  answer  was  that  he  did 
not. 

The  Revised  Statutes  prescribes  that  any  person  who  shall 
do  certain  acts  u  shall  be  adjudged  guilty"  of  whatever  the  offence 
shall  be,  and  that  all  persons  who  shall  be  "  adjudged  guilty"  of 
such  offences  "  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment"  etc.,  as  pre- 
scribed by  law. 

The  sole  office  of  the  Judge  is  to  declare  the  law.  The 
jury  decide  whether  or  not  the  prisoner  is  guilty,  and  when  they 
have  rendered  a  verdict  of  guilty  the  Judge  is  obliged  to  impose 
sentence,  his  only  discretion  being  the  limit  which  is  allowed  by 
the  statute  in  graduating  the  severity  of  the  punishment  for  that 
particular  offence. 

Yet  Recorder  Hackett,  without  the  slightest  legal  authority, 
has  in  a  large  number  of  cases,  after  the  accused  had  been 
regularly  convicted  of  serious  offences,  assumed  to  suspend 
sentence  and-  has  discharged  them  from  custody  without  the 
slightest  punishment. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  one  hundred  and  seventy  cases  in 
which  this  has  been  done  by  Recorder  Hackett  within  a  year 
and  ten  months.  On  some  days  as  many  as  four  convicted  per- 
sons thus  escaped  punishment,  and  on  Juao  9,  1874,  three 
burglars,  one  forger,  and  four  other  convicts  were  let  loose  after 


conviction.  Twenty-eight  of  the  number  were  fonnd  guilty  of 
grand  larceny,  fifteen  of  burglary,  while  numbers  of  others  were 
adjudged  guilty  of  forgery,  assault  with  intent  to  kill,  keeping- 
disorderly  houses,  larceny  from  the  person,  etc.,  altogether  in- 
dicating a  very  bad  class  of  criminals. 


SENTENCES  SUSPENDED  by  Kecorder  JOHN  K, 
HACKETT,  after  conviction. 


Datb. 

1873, 
Jan.  13. 
do  13. 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 


Name, 


Offence. 


13. 
13. 
27. 
27. 
27. 


Feb.  10. 

do  24 
March 

do 


do 
do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 
April 

do 

do 

do 
June 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 
August 

do 

do 

do 
Sept 

do 

do 

do 
October 

do 

do 
Nov. 


L 
4. 
4. 
1 
14. 
19. 
19. 
24. 
24. 
2. 
4. 
8. 
24. 
6. 
6. 
6. 
10. 
16. 
18. 
20. 
20. 
25. 
25. 
25. 
27. 
13. 
14. 
14. 
14. 
10. 

io. 

23. 
2:}. 
3. 
21. 
29, 
14. 


William  Chitty  Grand  larceny. 

William  Gillen   do 

Charles  Watson   do 

Isaac  Jacobs   do 

Edward  Clazberg   do 

John  Thompson   do 

Nicholas  Sender   Carrying  concealed  weapons. 

Mary  Holcomb  Obtaining  goods  under  false  pretences. 

Albert  G.  Hervey  Grand  larceny. 

Thomas  McGuire  Petit  larceny  from  person  by  night 

Terence  Lynoh  Assault  and  battery7  with  intent  to  kill. 

Martin  O'Callaghan  Assault  and  battery. 

John  Simmons  Carrying  concealed  weapons. 

Edward  J.  Shea  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill. 

John  Thomas   do  do 

Annie  Johnson  Grand  larceny,  dwelling  house 

Frederick  W.  Erikson.  .Carrying concealed  weapons 

Francis  Herman   do 

J ohn  Grady  Felony. 

Atwood  Davenport  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill 

Theo.  B.  Lippincott. . .  .Embezzlement  and  grand  larceny. 

John  O'Neill  Petit  larceny. 

Stephen  Phalon   do 

James  Sullivan  Petit  larceny 

Hugh  Stewart  Assault  and  battery. 

Edward  Stewart  Concealed  weapons. 

James  Connelly  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill, 

Charles  Stewart   do  do 

Henry  Frank  Grand  larceny. 

James  H.  Drake  Forgery,  third  degree. 

Thomas  Chadwick  Burglary,  third  degree  and  grand  lareeny. 

Frank  Golenser   do 

James  Sullivan   do 

Amelia  Levy  Petit  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods 

William  E.  Reilly  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill, 

Edward  D.  S.  Vaman..  Burglary  and  grand  larceny. 
Stephen  M.  P.  Rice . .  do 
William  H.  Mackey . .  do 

John  Scully  Grand  larceny. 

Charles  Gilroy   do 

Mary  McCormick  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kilL 

Lewis  Warschausky.  .Grand  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 
William  L.  Becker.  ...Vending  poison. 

Jane  Woods  Disorderly  housa. 

Casper  Kassinger  Selling  lottery  policies. 

Charles  Tapper  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill. 


Deo. 

2. 

do 

9. 

do 

11. 

do 

18. 

1874. 

Jan. 

12. 

Feb. 

20. 

March 

13. 

do 

18. 

do 

19. 

do 

19. 

do 

27. 

do 

27. 

April 

15. 

May 

12. 

do 

12. 

do 

13. 

do 

22. 

do 

22. 

Juno 

3. 

do 

5. 

do 

9. 

do 

9. 

do 

9. 

do 

9. 

do 

9, 

do 

9.' 

do 

9. 

do 

17. 

July 

21. 

August 

21. 

do 

6. 

do. 

6. 

1874. 
Sept  30. 
Oct.  7, 

do  7. 

do  13. 

do  13. 

do  13. 

do  16. 

do  16. 

do  27. 

do  29. 
Dec.  3. 

do  9. 

do  9. 

do  11. 

do  16. 

do  21. 

1875. 
Jan.  27. 

do  27. 
Feb.  5. 
do  5. 
do  12. 
do  15. 
do  23. 
do  23. 
March  30. 
do  30. 
do  30. 


Charles  Howe  Petit  larceny  from  person. 

Madeline  Pinkerville.. Disorderly  house. 

Edward  Hallohan. .  .  .Petit  larceny  from  person. 

William  H.  Larne ....  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  THTT, 


Mary  Lyons  Grand  larceny. 

Mary  Moore.  Grand  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 

William  Rafter  Grand  larceny. 

Alexander  Mitchell ...  do 

Gilbert  McLaughlin.  .Petit  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 
Thomas  Price   do 

Thomas  R.  Wiley  Burglary  3d  degree  and  receiving  stolen  goocte 

Henry  Hawkins   do 

Peter  Smith  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill 

Charles  O'Brien. . .  .Burglary  third  degree  and  grand  larceny. 
Charles  Churstmann  do 

John  Devos  Forgery  third  degree 

Charles  Schiffer  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill. 

Michael  Kiernan   do  do 

Louis  Corretta  Concealed  weapons. 

William  Clifford  Grand  larceny. 

Jacob  Minker  Burglary  first  degree  and  grand  larceny. 

Michael  Laudraf   do  do 

Andrew  Kilbrich ...  do  do 

James  B.  Mulhall. .  .Embezzlement  and  grand  larceny. 
Benjamin  Brown. . .  .Forgery  third  degree. 

Edward  Bryan  Concealed  weapons. 

William  C.  Vass   do 

John  W.  Elder  False  pretenses. 

Thomas  Mack  Burglary  third  degree. 

Maggie  Wood  Grand  larceny  from  person  by  night  and  receiv- 
ing stolen  goods. 
Charles  A.  Pack.  . .  .Grand  larceny. 

do  Forgery  third  degree. 

John  Howe  Grand  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 

William  McGuire  Petit  larceny, 

Edward  Gunn   do 

Marion  Roberts  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill. 

Philip  Nolan  Grand  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 

Edward  Brown   do 

Henry  Lang  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill. 

John  O'Brien   do 

George  Hill  Grand  larceny. 

Patrick  Sweeney  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kin. 

Thomas  B.  Wandell  Grand  larceny. 

Abraham  Schinknight. ...  do 

Auguste  Barthel   do 

James  Raymond  False  pretenses. 

James  Eagan  Burglary,  first  degree. 

James  B.  Cnegser .......  Grand  larceny. 

Horace  Marks   Grand  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 

Herman  P.  Uhlbrock ....  Embezzlement  and  grand  larceny. 

Thomas  Maher  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kilL 

Frank  Mitzennixy  Grand  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods 

John  Kelly   Grand  larceny  from  person  in  the  night. 

James  Houghtalin  Grand  larceny. 

James  Carney  Assault  and  battery  with  intent  to  kill 

Thomas  Fitzgerald   do 

Henry  Doleman  Petit  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 

Denis  Meany  Concealed  weapons, 

Churl«s  E.  D.  Pullman.  .Embezzlement  and  petit  larceny. 


7 


May  11.  John  Smith  Grand  larceny. 

do  19.  Robert  Braid  Assault  and  battery. 

do  26.  Henry  Swift  Burglary,  third  degree. 

do  26.  Herman  Smith  Petit  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goods. 

do  26.  do   Concealed  weapons. 

June  1.  Andrew  Roth  Grand  larceny. 

do  10.  Mary  Ann  Skeely  Grand  larceny  and  receiving  stolen  goodfi 

do  14.  Patrick  Finan  Petit  larceny  from  person. 

do  14,  John  Troy  Concealed  weapons. 


What  more  flagrant  violation  of  law  could  be  conceived  thaE 
this  ?  The  only  pardoning  power  recognized  by  law  is  that  re- 
posed in  the  Governor,  and  even  he  is  not  vested  with  the  power 
of  "  suspending  sentence  after  conviction,"  except  in  the  case  of 
high  treason,  and  for  a  limited  period.  (Constitution,  art,  4 
sec.  5.) 

Moreover,  when  a  pardon  is  issued  the  crime  is  condoned, 
but  when  sentence  is  suspended  the  criminal  is  free  only  during 
the  will  of  the  judge  ;  a  power  which  never  was  intended  to  be, 
and  never  was  vested  in  any  judicial  officer. 

In  view  of  the  above  cases  where  Eecorder  Hackett  has  il- 
legally shielded  criminals  from  the  punishment  which  the  law 
required  him  to  inflict,  what  becomes  of  the  panegyrics  that  have 
been  heaped  upon  him  as  "  a  strict  and  impartial  judge,"  "  ft 
terror  to  evil  doers,"  etc.  ? 

Is  it  not  evident  that,  while  he  at  times  imposes  the  most 
severe  sentences,  entirely  disproportionate  to  the  offence  com- 
mitted, yet  that  such  sentences  are  only  imposed  upon  the  poor 
and  unprotected,  the  influential  criminals  having  their  sen- 
tences suspended  ? 

Verily,  Eecorder  Hackett  may  well  be  called  "  the  poor  matfs 
judge. 

THE  FEES  PAID  HACKETT  BY  THE  RING. 

The  rapacity  of  Hackett  has  exceeded  that  of  any  judge  that 
has  ever  occupied  the  position  of  Eecorder,  or,  in  fact,  any  other 
judicial  position. 

In  1866,  his  salary  as  Eecorder  was   $5,250  Od 

and  he  drew  as  member  of  the  Board  of  Ee- 

vision  and  Correction  of  Assessments . .      819  90 

$6,069  90 

besides  office  rent  and  clerk's  hire, 

his  entire  receipts  from  the  city  being   9,812  40 


\ 

\ 


8 


In  1867  he  drew  salary  as  Eecorder   $7,000 

Commissioner  of  Sinking  Fund   1,000 

Board  of  Revision  and  Correction. . .  1,000 

  $9,000  00 

besides  office  rent  and  clerk's  hire,  his 

entire  receipts  being  $17,489  50 

In  1868  he  drew  Recorder's  salary  $10,000 

1869  Sinking  Fund  Commissioner   1,000 

Board  of  Revision  and  Correction  . .  1,000 

 $12,000  00 


Besides  office  rent  and  clerk's  hire,  his 
entire    receipts    being,  1868, 


$18,491;  and  1869  $18,990 

In  1870  he  drew  as  Recorder's  salary   15,000 

Commissioner  Sinking  Fund   1,000 

Board  of  Revision  and  Correction  . .  1,000 

 $17,000  00 

besides  office  rent  and  clerk's  hire, 

his  total  receipts  being  $25,406  67 

1871  he  drew  salary  as  Recorder  $15,000 

"  Supervisor   2,000 

Board  of  Revision  and  Correction  . .  1,000 

 $18,000  00 


his  receipts  from  the  city  being  together ....  $26,540  00 
He  has  also  filed  a  claim  against  the  city  for  $1,000  a  year 
as  Commissioner  of  the  Sinking  Fund  which  Mr.  Green  has  not 
paid. 

1872  to  1874  he  drew  salary  as  Recorder  $15,000 

"  Supervisor....  2,000 

 $17,000  00 

(The  Comptroller  having  declined  to  pay  him  his  salary  as 
Sinking  Fund  Commissioner  or  member  of  Board  of  Revision,) 
besides  his  office  expenses,  his  total  receipts  from  the  city 
being :  in  1872,  $24,472 ;  1873,  $22,153.33  ;  1874,  $22,820. 

The  first  specimen  of  his  greed  was  given  on  his  entry  into 
office  as  Recorder.  Although  this  did  not  take  place  until 
March,  1 866  yet  Mr.  Hackett  claimed  and  received  from  the  pub- 
lic treasury  over  $1,166  for  salary  from  January  1st  to  the  date 
of  his  appointment,  during  which  period  there  was  a  vacant -//. 

Not  being  contented  with  the  very  ample  salary,  (although 
since  doubled;,  which  he  received  in  one  capacity  or  another, 


9 


Recorder  Hackett  during  the  twenty-two  months  succeeding 
January,  1st.  1866,  received  for  counsel  fees  for  services  which 
Richard  O' Gorman,  the  Corporation  Counsel,  certified  he  had 
rendered  to  the  City  at  his  request,  twenty-one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and,  ticenty '-seven  dollars  and  fifty  cents,  a  detailed  state- 
ment of  which,  taken  from  the  books  of  the  Comptroller  is 
hereto  annexed,  marked  A. 

Of  this  he  received  for  services  rendered  in  1866,  $13,727  50 

1867,     8,000  50 


Total,    21,727  50 

All  this  be  it  remembered  for  services  rendered  entirely 
outside  the  duties  of  his  office  which  demanded  his  whole  time 
and  attention. 

This  matter  acquired  such  notoriety,  and  was  considered  so 
undignified — to  use  no  harsher  term — that  it  was  brought  be- 
fore the  notice  of  the  Grand  Jury  of  the  County  by  the  Citizens 
Association  of  New  York  in  a  letter  dated,  October,  1868,  in 
which  they  used  the  following  language : 

"The  Association  ^submit  that  it  is  an  improper  practice,  and  calculated 
to  bring  the  bench  into  disrepute,  that  a  criminal  Judge  should  be  permitted  to 
•receive,  while  serving  in  a  judicial  office,  large  fees  from  other  departments  of  the 
government.  The  Association  submits  that  if  a  high  judicial  officer  in  addition 
to  his  salary  shall  bo  permitted  to  receive  large  emoluments  for  the  practice  of 
the  professions  of  the  law  from  the  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  Government,  he 
may  become  more  or  less  partial  in  viewing  the  oonduct  of  the  officials  who  con- 
tribute so  largely  his  income,  and  inimical  to  all  persons  or  associations  striving 
ioprevent  excessive  expenditures  of  the  public  money." 

What  citizen  is  there  who  does  not  consider  that  the  Citi- 
zens, Association  in  using  this  language  expressed  the  feeling  of 
the  community  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  Eecorder  Hackett  in 
receiving  these  fees,  and  that  in  view  of  his  conduct,  (as  shown 
by  Mr.  Peckham's  letter  on  page  two)  when  his  friends  of 
the  ring,  through  whose  influence  these  vast  sums  of  money 
were  paid  him,  were  brought  before  him  for  trial  it  is  apparent 
that  they  correctly  apprehended  that  the  consequences  of  his 
accepting  them  would  be  to  render  him  "  more  or  less  partial 
in  viewing  their  conduct." 

Hackett' s  Fraudulent  Receipts  as  Commissioner  in  Street 

Openings. 

John  K.  Hackett  together  with  John  J.  Bradley  and  Charles 
G.  Halpine  was  appointed  July,  31,  1866,  to  lay  out  a  public 
plaee  known  as  "  The  Circle,"  at  the  intersection  of  Eighth 


1 

10 

Avenue  and  Fifty-ninth  Street,  with  a  radius  of  two  hundred 
and  twenty-six  feet.  The  circumference  was  1,357  feet,  and  in- 
cluded about  three  and  one-half  acres,  more  than  one  half  of 
which  had  previously  belonged  to  the  city  as  part  of  the  streets 
and  of  the  Central  Park. 

The  duty  of  the  Commissioners  was  to  estimate  the  value  of 
the  private  property  taken  and  to  assess  the  cost  upon  the  prop- 
erty benefitted.  A  task  which  was  exceedingly  simple,  the 
amount  of  condemned  private  property  being  very  small,  less 
than  two  acres,  and  being  entirely  owned  by  only  twenty-seven 
persons. 

During  the  entire  progress  of  the  work  of  the  Commission- 
ers Mr.  Hackett,  who  was  their  chairman,  was  as  above  shown, 
drawing  pay  from  the  city  as  Recorder  and  member  of  the 
Board  of  Revision  and  Correction  of  Assessments,  and  also  as 
special  counsel  for  the  trial  and  argument  of  city  causes. 

In  the  interim  of  leisure  left  him  from  these  other  remu- 
nerative occupations  Mr.  Hackett  found  time,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  his  two  fellow-Commissioners,  one  surveyor,  one  clerk, 
one  assistant  clerk,  (James  M.  Sweeny),  and  nine  appraisers,  to 
complete  his  arduous  labors  and  submit  his  report  on  the  four- 
teenth day  of  November,  1867,  about  fifteen  months  after  his 
appointment. 

It  will  be  hard  to  be  believed  possible  that  the  bill  of  costs 
for  the  fees  and  expenditures  of  these  Commissioners  for  taking 
these  two  acres  of  private  property,  amounted  to  $26,331.91' 
and  yet  this  is  the  sum  which  was  paid  to  them  as  allowed  by 
Judge  Barnard. 

The  law  of  1862  (chap.  483,  sec.  1)  provides  that  "  the  com- 
pensation to  the  Commissioners  in  any  proceeding  hereafter  to 
be  commenced,  for  opening  or  altering  any  street  or  avenue  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  north  of  Fourteenth  street,  shall  not  ex- 
ceed in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of  necessary  disbursements 
hereinafter  mentioned,  the  sum  of  thirty  cents  a  foot  for  the 
lineal  extent  of  the  street  or  avenue,  or  the  portion  thereof  so  to 
be  opened  or  altered." 

Under  this  rule  the  compensation  to  all  the  Commissioners 
(the  lineal  extent  of  the  circumference  of  the  improvement  being 
1,357  feet)  should  have  been  $417.10,  the  share  of  each  of  the 
three  being  $139.03. 


11 


For  this  service  Mr.  Hackett  claimed  and  received  $3,000, 

It  is  understood  that  when  this  was  suggested  to  Mr, 
Hackett,  and  he  was  asked  how  he  could  claim  such  an  allow- 
ance in  view  of  the  law  restricting  the  fees  to  30  cents  per  lineal 
foot,  he  replied;  "We  measured  a  spiral  line  commencing  at 
the  center  and  screwing  its  way  out."  This  would  certainly 
seem  to  be  a  "ring"  and  not  merely  a  circle  proceeding. 

Irrespective  of  the  statute,  this  charge  cannot  be  refuted, 
that  considering  the  area  of  this  improvement,  the  charges  of 
the  Commissioners  and  their  bill  of  costs  are  more  excessive 
and  exorbitant  than  any  other  that  has  ever  been  presented,  and 
coming  so  early  as  they  did  in  the  history  of  the  ring  improve- 
ments, may  be  fairly  said  to  have  opened  the  way  for  the  fright- 
ful series  of  overcharges  which  have  sucked  the  money  from  the 
pockets  of  our  property  owners. 

It  therefore  appears  that  these  incursions  on  the  public 
treasury  were  from  the  first  countenanced  and  accepted  by  one 
who  at  the  very  time  was  being  paid  by  the  city,  as  one  of  its 
legal  advisers  and  judges,  to  protect  its  interests  against  wrong 
— John  K.  Hackett. 

An  official  copy  of  the  taxed  costs  is  appended  : 
Supreme  Court. — In  the  matter  of  the  application  of  the 
Commissioners  •  of  the  Central  Park,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the 
Mayor,  Aldermen  ann  Commonality  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
relative  to  widening  Broadway  from  Fifty-seventh  and  Fifty  - 
ninth  streets,  and  the  laying  out  of  a  public  place,  circular  in 
form,  at  the  intersection  of  Eighth  avenue  and  Fifty-ninnth 
street,  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

COSTS,    CHARGES  AND  EXPENSES  IN  THE  ABOVE   ENTITLED  MATTER,, 


John  K.  Hackett,  Commissioner   $3,000  00 

John  J.  Bradley,  Commissioner   2,500  00 

Charles  G.  Halpine,  Commissioner   2,500  00 

Gardner  &  Sage,  Surveyor   4,969  66 

Edward  J.  Wilson,  Clerk   1,750  00 

James  M.  Sweeney,  Assistant  Clerk   1,250  00 

Edward  J.  Wilson,  drafting  and  copying  report   4,746  35 

Edward  J.  Wilson,  room  rent   150  00 

Edward  J.  Wilson,  amount  paid  for  livery   12  00 

William  C.  Eogers  &Co.;  printing  and  stationary   351  40 


\ 


12 


Alexander  H.  Keecli,  printing  notices  

John  Ihinn,  printing  notices  (thirty  and  ten-day.  . .  . 

John  Doyle,  printing  notices  twenty. day  

Michael  Gehegan,  Appraiser  

John  Scott,  Appraiser  

Sylvester  E.  Nolan,  Appraiser  

Hans  Scudder,  Appraiser  

J olm  Molloy ,  Appraiser  

James  Hume,  Appraiser  

Anthony  J.  Blecker,  Appraiser  

Edward  H.  Ludlow,  Appraiser  

Adrian  H.  Mailer,  Appraiser  

Advertising  notices  


19  50 
15  0  00 

50  00 
500  00 , 
600  00 
500  00 
500  00 
500  00 
500  00 
220  00 
220  00 
220  00 
1,123  00 


Total 


$26,331  91 


I  hereby  tax  and  allow  the  foregoing  bill  of  costs,  charges 
and  expenses  at  the  sum  of  $26,331.91,  this  eighteenth  day  of 
November,  1867. 


In  addition  to  the  above,  Hackett  received  as  Commissioner 
for  widening  Broadway,  from  Fifty-seventh  to  Fifty-ninth 
street,  (two  blocks),  two  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven  dollars  ($2,937.00),  the  entire  cost  of  the  Commissioners 
being  the  modest  sum  of  $25,932.83. 

Mr.  Hackett  not  only  appeal's  to  have  looked  out  for  him- 
self, but  for  his  relations  and  friends. 

It  will  be  recollected  what  capital  is  being  made  by  the 
supporters  of  Kecorder  Hackett  upon  his  high-toned  refusal  to 
allow  Tammany  Hall  to  interfere  with  the  officers  of  his  court. 
The  following  list  of  such  officers  will  show  his  real  reasons. 

1st.  0.  Decatur  Hall,  brother-in-law  to  the  Recorder,  is  in 
the  Recorder's  office,  salary  $3,000. 

2d.  Edward  J.  Hall,  Deputy  clerk  of  the  Court  of  General 
Sessions,  is  the  Recorder's  nephew,  salary  $3,000. 

3d.  John  Hall,  another  family  connection,  is  an  officer  of  the 
Court  of  General  Sessions. 

4th.  Owen  P.  Flanagan  is  employed  as  managing  clerk,  and 
to  appear  nominally  as  attorney  in  the  Recorder's  private  law 
business,  and  is  on  the  payroll  as  an  officer  of  the  Comrt  of 
General  Sessions. 


George  G.  Barnard,, 
Judge  Supreme  Court. 


Gould's  Law  Director}*,  which  purports  to  be  "  a  complete 
list  of  practising  lawyers  in  the  city  of  New  York,"  has 

In  the  years  1871, )  John  K.  Hackett,  Lawyer,  317  Broadway. 
1872,  1873,  1874.,  V  Owen  W.  Elanaoak,    "  317 
1875,  )  William  V.  Leaky,      "  317 

The  latter  gentleman  appears  to  have  commenced  in  1872 
as  first  clerk  in  the  Recorder's  office,  salary  $3,000. 

In  addition  to  the  above  Recorder  Hackett  numbers  among 
his  employees  Michael  Eyan,  abas  Coachee  (ex-Mayor  Hall's 
coachman),  appointed  as  officer  of  the  General  Sessions  by 
Hackett.  Officers  Evans  and  Iteilly  appointed  through  Ben. 
Wood,  and  McCluskey  and  McDonald  appointed  through 
"Jimmy"  O'Brien. 

After  perusing  the  foregoing  matter  it  will  be  somewhat 
refreshing  to  read  the  reply  of  Dr.  Feodore  Mierson,  (which 
appeared  in  the  Tribune  on  the  3d  of  January,  1874)  to  Recorder 
Hackett's  letter.  His  answer,  which  until  now  seems  to  have 
been  made  his  main  stock  in  trade,  sensibly  diminishes  in  value. 

Dr.  Mierson' s  letter  is  as  follows  : 

New  Yokk,  January  2, 1874. 

The  Hon,  J.  K.  Hackett,  Judgs  Court  of  General  Sessions  : 

Dear  Sir  :  Your  communication  of  date  the  20th  ultimo,  a  true  copy  of  which  I  find 
published  in  the  papers  of  to-day,  was  handed  to  me  by  one  of  your  messengers  at  my 
residence,  257  East  Forty-eight  street,  late  on  the  evening  of  the  31st. 

Your  answer  to  my  inquiry  whether  "you  would  be  willing  to  consider  applications  for 
subordinate  positions  in  your  Court  upon  the  recommendation  of  suitable  persons  therefor  by 
our  committee,"  calls  for  a  reply.  I  acted  in  that  matter  not  upon  my  individual  responsibility 
but  in  my  official  capacity  as  Secretary  of  the  committee,  and  upou  its  recommendation.  In 
making  our  request  tor  a  subordinate  clerk  and  Court  officer  we  had  not  the  slightest  idea 
that  we  should  be  deemed  guilty  of  trespassing  upon  the  independence  of  the  august  Court 
or  in  any  manner  seeking  to  soil  the  spotless  ermine  of  the  judiciary.  But  as  it  is  well  known 
that  some  of  the  Courts  do  not  reach  your  excellent  standard  of  "reliable,  unbribable  and 
discreet,"  as  it  is  known  that  one  officer  of  your  Court  has  been  removed  and  his  place  sup- 
plied by  a  protege  of  ex-Senator  Harry  Genet,  now  a  fugitive  from  justice  ;  as  it  is  also  stated 
npon  what  we  believe  to  be  good  authority  that  one  of  the  present  officers  of  the  same  Court 
formerly  kept  a  house  of  resort  for  professional  thieves  ;  as  a  number  of  appointments  in  the 
courts  have  been  made  upon  the  recommendation  of  political  parties,  such  as  Apollo  Hall, 
the  Republican  and  other  poliiical  organizations,  wo  thought  and  still  tiiink  it  would  be  rather 
in  the  interests  of  justice  if  some  of  the  officers  of  the  courts— including  such  as  above 
mentioned  and  such  as  are  mere  body-guards  and  house-servants,  the  creatures  of  the  old 
Ring — were  replaced  by  honorable  and  competent  men  who  are  in  sympathly  with  earnest 
efforts  now  going  forward  to  secure  honest  government. 

It  may  be  that  the  consideration  of  our  request  would  necessitate  the  removal  of  some 
protege  of  some  one  or  another  of  your  friends  with  whom  you  maintain  personal  relations 
of  the  most  intimate  character.  Gratitude  is  a  sentiment  in  which  any  man  may  feel  a  just 
pride,  and  it  is  no  doubt  a  pleasure  to  your  friends  that  you  display  it  in  such  an  eminent 
degree  even  in  your  judicial  capacity.  It  is  doubtless  this  distinguishing  trait  in  your  charac- 
ter that  impels  you  tj  say  that 11  privately  your  sympathies  are  most  ardent  in  their  Democratio 
tendencies." 

I  could  assign  a  number  of  reasons  and  facts,  but  deeming  the  above  sufficient  for  the 
present  will  reserve  them  for  the  future,  and  remain  with  esteem,  your  obedient  servant, 

I>r.  Feodore  Mierson. 


14 


Becorder  Hackett  as  a  Supervisor. 

Becorder  Hackett  became  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Super* 
visors  in  July,  1870,  by  virtue  of  his  office  of  Becorder,  and 
remained  a  member  during  the  worst  period  of  the  Bing  rule, 
receiving  an  extra  salary  of  $2,000  for  his  services  as  a  Super- 
visor. It  was  as  much  his  duty  to  see  that  the  business  of  that 
Board  was  conducted  honestly  as  it  was  to  perform  any  other 
of  the  duties  of  his  office.  The  fraudulent  acts  of  this  Board  of 
Supervisors  were  town  talk,  and  if  Becorder  Hackett  had  been 
the  upright,  impartial  magistrate  he  is  now  asserted  to  be  he 
would  have  fought  them  to  the  bitter  end,  and  if  out- voted  by 
his  colleagues,  called  the  attention  of  the  Grand  Jury  to  their 
action,  this  being  the  very  purpose  for  which  'the  Becorder  was 
made  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors. 

Yet  Becorder  Hackett' s  voice  was  never  raised,  nor  is  his 
vote  recorded  against  a  single  one  of  the  fraudulent  measures 
passed  by  the  Board,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  and  for  a 
knowledge  of  whose  acts  he  was  responsible.  On  the  contrary, 
it  appears  by  the  official  records  that  Recorder  Hackett  voted 
for  a  large  number  of  the  fraudulent  armory  jobs,  such  as  the 
leasing  of  the  premises  at  Ninth  avenue  and  Twenty-seventh 
street,  for  twelve  years,  at  $12,000  a  year,  those  at  118  to  128 
West  Twenty-second  street,  for  six  years,  at  a  rent  alleged  to 
be  five  times  what  the  premises  were  really  worth,  and  also  th« 
Centre  Market  job.  Subsequently  he  voted  for  repairs  to  the 
latter  building  amounting  to  upwards  of  $28,000.  On  the  13th 
of  December,  1870,  he  voted  $11,000  for  pay  to  forty-nine 
attendants  of  the  Court  of  Oyer  and  Terminer.  On  the  12th  of 
January,  1871,  he  voted  for  $16,000  for  sixty-four  attendants  for 
said  court,  and  on  May  1st,  for  forty-one  attendants  for  said 
court,  which,  as  a  judge,  he  must  have  known  was  fraudulent 
He  also  voted  for  Tracey's  bill  for  $16,000  for  supplies  to  the 
County  Jail,  which  has  since  been  defeated  in  the  courts  ;  for 
Morgan  Jones'  plumbing  bill  for  over  $6,000  for  the  same  jail, 
and,  in  fact,  invariably  voted  in  favor  of  paying  every  bill  which 
was  brought  before  any  of  the  meetings  of  the  Board  which  he 
attended. 

It  cannot  be  pretended  but  what,  as  Recorder  Hackett  must 
b(  considered  to  possess  ordinary  common  sense,  he  must  have 
known  that  the  transactions  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  during 
thifl  time  were  fraudulent,  and  that  the  bills  for  which  he  voted 


15 


were  of  the  same  character.  Even,  however,  if  he  did  not  know 
this,  the  least  investigation  would  have  assured  him  of  what  was 
a  matter  of  public  notoriety,  that  the  taxpayers  were  being 
swindled  in  a  most  outrageous  manner  by  the  action  of  the 
Board  of  which  he  was  a  member.  If,  therefore,  he  blindly 
shut  his  eyes  to  the  character  of  their  transactions,  it  was 
because  he  did  not  want  to  know  it,  and  he  is,  consequently,  as 
much  to  blame  as  if  he  had  been  an  active  participant  in  the 
frauds.  His  record  as  a  Supervisor,  therefore,  shows  him  to 
be  something  very  different  from  the  active  and  vigilant  officer 
which  he  is  now  asserted  to  be. 


Recorder  Hackett  as  a  Commissioner  of  the  Sinking  Fund- 

Among  other  responsible  positions  held  by  Recorder 
Hackett  was  that  of  one  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund,  for  which  he  regularly  drew  a  salary,  $1,000  a  year,  until 
Comptroller  Green  ascertained  that  he  had  no  right  to  receive 
it  and  refused  to  pay  him.  During  the  year  1871  Mr.  Hackett's 
colleagues  were  his  old  friend,  Mayor  Hall,  in  addition  to 
Comptroller  Connolly  and  Alderman  Dimond,  and  his  actions 
were  precisely  those  that  might  be  expected  from  a  man  found 
in  such  company.  ' 

On  June  19,  1871,  Recorder  Hackett  and  Comptroller  Con- 
nolly were  appointed  a  committee  to  agree  with  William  C. 
Traphagen  in  regard  to  securing  the  possession  of  certain  lands 
held  adversely  to  the  city. 

The  lands  in  question  were  certain  water  grants,  the  facts 
m  regard  to  which  were  well  known.  They  could  only  be  re- 
covered by  legal  proceedings,  and  the  Corporation  Counsel,  as 
the  legal  representative  of  the  City,  and  the  counsel  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Sinking  Fund,  was  the  proper  person  and  the 
only  one  authorized  to  institute  them.  Moreover,  as  the  owners 
of  this  property  were  bona  fide  purchasers  from  the  City,  it  would 
have  been  grossly  unjust  to  deprive  them  of  it  upon  a  techni- 
cality. Yet.  Mr.  Hackett  and  Comptroller  Connolly,  under  the 
authority  thus  vested  in  them  by  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund,  coolly  entered  into  an  agreement  with  William 
C.  Traphagen,  placing  the  entire  matter  of  recovering  those 
lands  in  his  charge,  and  agreeing  to  advance  all  money  he 


16 


diould  require  for  disbursement,  and  to  pay  him  for  his  services 
one-half  their  value,  which  agreement  was  confirmed  by  the  vote 
of  Messrs.  Hall  and  Dimond.* 

*  See  the  extract  from  the  official  record  hereto  annexed  at  page  30,  antl 
marked  B. 

That  this  was  not  only  an  utter  violation  of  law  but  a  plain 
and  transparent  fraud  upon  the  public  needs  no  argument.  It 
is  demonstrated,  however,  by  the  action  of  the  new  Board  of 
Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  in  1874,  then  consisting  of 
Mayor  Havemeyer,  Comptroller  Green,  Chamberlain  Lane, 
Recorder  Hackett,  and  Alderman  Van  Schaick,  by  whom  the 
following  resolution  was  passed,  April  1,  1874,  after  a  thorough 
ventilation  of  the  whole  subject : 

Whereas,  On  the  minutes  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund  there  appears  a  writing  purporting  to  be  an  agreement  en- 
tered into  on  the  20th  of  July,  1871,  between  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Sinking  Fund  and  one  William  C.  Traphagen  relative  to  furnsh- 
ing  information  in  relation  to  the  recovery  of  city  property  held  ad- 
versely to  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  city  of  New 
York  :  and 

Whereas,  The  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  are  of  the 
opinion  that  said  pretended  agreement  is  without  authority  of  law, 
and  wholly  operative  and  void,  and  that  if  said  pretended  agree- 
ment were  to  be  deemed  and  held  binding  and  valid  and  effective  bj 
the  Commissioners  the  interests  of  the  city  would  be  greatly  embar- 
rassed and  damnified,  and  great  loss  would  accrue  :  and 

Whereas,  The  said  pretended  agreement  would,  if  held  valid,  af- 
ford great  opportunity  for  oppressive  measures  upon  innocent  par- 
ties ;  therefore — be  it 

Resolved,  That  a  certain  resolution  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  purporting  to  authorize  the  execution  of  such  pre- 
tended agreement,  and  the  pretended  adoption  thereof,  as  the  act  of 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of 
July,  1871,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  vacated  and  set  aside, 
rescinded,  abrogated  and  cancelled,  and  that  such  pretended  agree- 
ment is  hereby  declared  to  be  void  and  of  no  force  and  effect. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that  Eecorder  Hackett  op- 
posed this  recession  of  his  action  to  the  utmost,  moving  to  strike 
out  of  the  resolution  the  words  "purported"  and  "pretended** 
(so  as  to  leave  Traphagen  some  shadow  of  a  claim),  then  at- 
tempting to  pigeon  hole  the  matter  by  moving  to  refer  it  to  the 
Corporation  Counsel,  and  finally  voting  against  it. 


17 


The  New  York  Times,  the  day  after  the  repeal  of  this  con- 
tract (April  2,  1874),  spoke  of  it  as  the  anti-type  of  the  cele- 
brated Sanborn  contract,  as  a  "  highly  symmetrical  job"  and  as 
exhibiting  a  boldness  of  conception  not  dreamt  of  by  the  col- 
lectors of  federal  taxes  (referring  to  the  outcry  then  going  on 
about  Jayne).    The  Times  stated  further : 

"Thai,  the  whole  ground  had  been  covered  by  the  most  copious  and  precise  judicial  de- 
u  cisions  :  the  Revised  Statutes  had  re-enacted  and  simplified  all  the  essential  legislation 
"on  the  subject  *  *   *  * 

"  Ili.s'(Traphagan's)  theory  went  to  the  extent  of  holding  that  a  grant  made  in  good 
"faith  and  duly  paid  for  might  still  be  "  held  adversely  "  to  the  corporation  and  without  o-ood 
"title  *  *  *  * 

"  This,  then,  briefly,  was  the  nature  of  Mr.  Traphagan's  contract.  The  same  Board 
"  which  had  confirmed  the  titles  and  taken  the  money  of  the  owners  of  city  water  grants  em- 
"  powered  a  smart  lawyer  to  contest,  at  tlie  city's  expense,  the  validity  of  those  titles,  and  if  he 
41  fonnd  a  flaw  in  them  t«  dispossess  the  owner  and  take  half  the  proceeds  *  *  He  might  be 
41  able  for  years  to  harass  proprietors  along  the  whole  water  front  without  risking  a  cent  of  his 
"own  money,  and  without  faiiing,  if  so  minded,  to  be  very  well  paid  for  the  expenditure  of 
"his  own  time. 

"  Nor  was  this  all.  Suppose  the  contiguous  proprietors,  who  had  taken  and  paid  for 
"  their  grants  in  good  faith,  had  been  dispossessed  by  Mr.  Traphagan.  They  could  hardly  fail 
"  to  have  a  right  of  action  against  the  Sinking  Fund  lor  the  recovery  of  the  money  paid  for  a 
"worthless  title.  While  tJie  Commissioners  were  putting  into  one  pocket  half  the  realized 
"■value  af  a  recovered  grant  they  would  tlierefore  Tiave  had  to  take  out  oftlie  otJier  the  whole 
"amount  originally  paid  for  it  *   *   *  * 

"  Had  Hall,  Connolly  and  the  rest  of  the  King  Commissioners  remained  in  power  they 
«'  could  have  provided  a  magnificent  field  for  the  enterprise  of  their  contra*,  t  >r.  They  had  only 
<*  to  leave  some  legal  flaw  In  their  grants  of  water  rights  to  be  readily  detected  by  Mr.  Trap- 
t'tiagan  and  to  be  used  for  the  expropriation  of  the  innocent  proprietor." 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  author  of  this  highly  symmetri- 
cal job,  and  one' of  the  Ring  Commissioners  who  approved  it,  was 
Recorder  John  K.  Hackett,  the  eulogies  which  the  Times  now 
-  heaps  to  him  seems  a  little  strained. 

Recorder  Hackett  as  a  Protector  of  the  Ring. 

In  Mr.  Peckham's  letter,  which  is  printed  on  page  two,  it 
appears  that  Recorder  Hackett  not  only  interfered  to  stop  the 
trial  of  Mayor  Hall  before  Judge  Daly,  (which  then  looked  very 
much  as  if  conviction  would  be  had),  but  that  he  quashed  the 
indictment  against  Hugh  Smith  upon  a  false  assumption  of  the 
law,  and  consented  to  a  not  pros,  not  only  of  the  indictment 
against  Smith,  bufc  of  those  against  Sweeny,  Tweed,  and  Wood- 
ward. 

But  this  was  not  the  only  occasion  in  which  he  interfered 
on  behalf  of  the  Ring.  It  will  be  remembered  that  in  Septem- 
ber and  October,  1868,  the  Citizens'  Association  of  New  York, 
which  had  not  then  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Ring,  published 
a  number  of  communications  in  regard  to  the  way  in  which  the 
affairs  of  the  city  were  being  conducted  by  those  officials.  For 
the  purpose  of  over-awing  them  by  threats  of  criminal  prosecu- 
tion, Recorder  Hackett,  in  his  charge  to  the  Grand  Jury  on 
October  7th,  1868,  made  the  following  charge : 


13 


"  For  some  time  past,  and  more  especially  within  the  past  few  weefes,  various  charges  of 
non-feasance  and  misfeasance  against  public  officers  have  been  published  in  the  shape  of 
letters  purporting  to  have  eminated  from  a  body  styling  itself  a  '  Citizens'  Association.'  If 
the  charges  adverted  to  had  been  suscep:able  of  legal  proof  then  they  should  have  been  long 
since  presented  for  the  consideration  of  a  police  magistrate  or  of  a  grand  jury  of  this  county, 
but  they  appear  to  have  been  made  on  insufficient  or  hearsay  or  partisan  or  prejudiced  testi- 
mony, and,  therefore,  they  may  possibly  become  libellous.  One  of  the  officials  thus  assailed 
has  boldly  charged  over  his  own  signature  that  there  is  practically  no  such  body  as  the 
'Citizen's  Association  ;'  that  a  few  interested  persons  prepared  and  fulminated  the  charges 
in  question  on  their  individual  responsibility.  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  the  so-called  4  Citizens' 
Association'  arraigns  individuals,  and,  on  the  other,  one  individual  arraigns  the  so-called 
association.  In  this  connection  I  may  be  permitted  to  add  that  the  existence  of  a  star  chamber 
secret  in  meeting  and  irresponsible  in  character,  originated  the  institution  of  the  Grand  Jury 
as  long  since  as  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  and  if  it  be  true,  as  charged  by  a  communication 
before  me,  that  the  accusations  proceded  from  a  few  men,  who,  by  large  salaries  and  fees  paid 
them,  make  a  business  of  originating  complaints  not,  disinterestedly  originated  or  fulminated 
then  they  are  unquestionably  libelous.  The  Grand  Jury  is  a  constitutional  body,  created  to 
exercise'just  such  functions  as  the  Citizens'  Association  is  charged  to  have  unpractically 
usurped.  Besides  we  have  in  this  city  a  vigilant  and  impartial  corps  of  newspaper  reporters 
and  editors,  who  can  and  do  arraign  officers  without  the  aid  of  any  amateur  reporters  and 
impromptu  editors,  such  as  it  is  charged  edit  newspapers  with  letters  signed  by  a  so-called 
Citizens'  Association.  I  would  suggest  that,  in  justice  to  the  latter,  you  inquire  if  there 
really  be  such  an  association  at  the  present  time  ;  its  object,  whether  accusations  are  made  by 
the  action  of  its  whole  body,  or  by  a  few  of  its  members,  of  whom  sucn  body  or  such  com- 
mittee consists  ;  whether  the  association  holds  meetings,  how  much  its  officers  are  paid,  for 
what  services,  by  whom  paid  ;  does  it  obtain  evidence  of  the  charges  it  purposes  to  make 
through  its  officers  ;  if  so,  are  such  charges  based  upepi  legal  evidence  and  what  is  the  charac- 
ter of  such  evidence  ?  Then,  if  you  think  the  matter  worthy  of  your  attention,  and  in  the 
furtherance  of  the  public  good,  grasp  that  jurisdiction  over  offenses  which  they  have  usurped. 
But,  if  you  find  the  association  to  be  comparatively  mythical  and  its  agents  to  be  pecuniarily 
interested  in  originating  or  publishing  charges  for  which  there  is  neither  no  or  hearsay  evi- 
dence, then,  in  justice* to  those  whom  it  has  defiantly  arraigned,  indict  them  promptly  for  libel. 

In  reply  to  this  unprovoked  and  illegal  attack  which  threatened  both  the  freedom  of 
speech  and  the  liberty  of  the  press  the  Citizens'  Association  called  the  attention  of  the  Grand 
Jury  to  the  fact  of  the  Ring  frauds  which  had  been  perpetrated  in  the  erection  and  fitting  up 
of  the  Court  House,  the  frauds  in  fitting  up  armories,  and  to  Recorder  Hackett's  own  conduct 
«'  in  receiving  $21,750  for  doing  part  ot  the  work  of  the  Corporation  Counsel's  office,  although 
during  the  period  when  he  was  Recorder  and  drawing  in  such  capacity  a  salary  and  allow- 
ance amounting  during  that  period  to  $15,000."  And  also  declared  "  that  in  this  country  a 
public  officer  was  the  servant  of  the  people,  and  that  it  was  not  only  his  right  but  the  duty  of 
every  citizen  to  exercise  tho  most  diligent  watch  over  the  conduct  of  all  officials,  whether 
legislative  or  judicial,  and  that  without  such  constant  supervision,  incapable  and  dishonest 
men  may  attain  to  the  highest  positions  of  the  State,  and  even  the  courts  may  become  sanc- 
tuaries for  fraud  when  dishonest  judges  may  use  their  power for  the.  suppression  of  virtue 
and  encouragement  of  vice,  the  perversion  of  official  morality,  and  for  private  gain," — 
which  language  most  people  considered  to  apply  very  closely  to  the  conduct  of  Recorder 
Hackett. 

A  copy  of  this  letter  will  be  found  at  page       marked  C. 

The  Grand  Jury,  instead  of  following  the  lead  of  the  Ke- 
corder  and  attacking  the  Citizens'  Association  which  was  doing 
its  best  to  expose  official  wrong-doing,  came  into  court  on  the 
twenty-third  day  of  October,  1868,  and  through  its  foreman 
handed  to  Recorder  Hackett  the  following  presentment  in  re- 
gard to  the  matter  of  his  charge  : 

The  Grand  Jury  of  the  county  of  New  York  present  for  the  iD for- 
mation of  the  Court  in  reference  to  the  charge  concerning  tho 
Citizens'  Association,  that  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  every 
citizen  in  a  free  country  to  exercise  the  strictest  supervision 
over  the  conduct  of  public  officers  and  the  expenditures  of  the  public 
money,  and  to  lay  before  the  people,  whenever  it  may  be  necessary, 
facts  effecting  the  public  interests  ;  also,  that  in  this  community, 
where  the  public  money  is  to  a  great  extent  extravagantly  expended, 
Hick:  is  a  necessity  for  an  association  whose  object  is  to  prevent  im- 
proper expenditure.  Tho  Grand  Jury  present  it  as  then  opinion 
that  the  Citizens'  Association  of  New  York  has  striven  zealously  and 
efficiently  to  protect  the  public  interest,  and  is  entitled  to  the  respect 
of  the  community. 


19 


Recorder  Hackett  handed  the  presentment  among  other 
papers  to  the  Clerk  of  the  Conrt.  Mr.  Hall  was  District  Attor- 
ney. The  presentment  was  subsequently  suppressed  on  the  ridicu- 
lous pretext  that  it  should  have  been  signed  also  by  the  District- 
Attorney.  Mr.  Hall  went  before  the  Grand  Jury  and  lectured 
them,  stating  among  other  things  that  they  had  all  been  guilty 
of  contempt  of  Court  in  presenting  such  a  paper  to  the  Re- 
corder, and  finally  induced  them  to  recall  the  paper.  Instead 
of  their  proceeding  to  investigate  the  matter  charged  in  the 
document  sent  by  the  Citizens'  Association,  an  effort  was  made 
by  the  District-Attorney  and  others  to  indict  the  officers  of  the 
association  for  an  alleged  misdemeanor  in  having  the  audacity 
to  address  communications  to  the  Grand  Jury  calling  its  atten- 
tion to  the  frauds  of  certain  officials.  Of  course  this  attempt 
was  a  lamentable  failure. 

How  intimate  Recorder  Hackett's  relations  were  with  the 
worst  portion  of  the  Ring  were,  and  into  what  company  it  led 
him  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  of  his  being  a  visitor  at  the 
residence  of  the  celebrated  "  Josie  "  Mansfield. 

Josie  Mansfield  and  Recorder  Hackett. 

Upon  .the  trial  and  impeachment  of  George  G.  Barnard  be- 
fore the  Senate  in  the  Summer  of  1872,  Josie  Mansfield  was  ex- 
amined as  a  witness.    The  testimony  will  be  found  in  Volume  I 
•pages  362  to  389.    She  testified  that  she  lived  with  the  late 
Jim  Fisk  in  Twenty-third  Street  in  this  city. 

The  following  evidence  shows  that  Recorder  Hackett  was 
a  visitor  at  her  house  : 

Q.— Where  did  you  reside  in  1868  ? 

A.— IS  West  24th  St. 

Q. — Did  you  during  that  year  see  George  G.  Barnard  at 
that  house? 
A. — I  did. 
Q.— How  often? 
A. — Once  in  three  or  four  weeks. 

*  *  *  *-  #,*  *  * 

Q. — Have  you  seen  William  M.  T  weed  there  ? 
A. — Yes,  sir. 

Q. — About  what  time  did  you  move  into  the  house  in  Twan- 
dy-third  Street  ? 


20 


A.— The  first  day  of  July,  1869. 

Q. — Now,  what  other  public  officers  of  the  City  of  New 
York  were  yon  accustomed  to  receive  at  your  house  besides 
Judge  Barnard  ? 

A. — I  have  received  Recorder  Hackett. — Yol.  I.  Barnard 
Trial,  page  389. 

Is  not  this  rather  singular  company  for  an  "  upright  Judge," 
a  "  terror  to  evil  doers  "  to  keep  ? 

-How  Hackett  Preserves  the  Law  and  Protects  his  Friends. 

Although  in  the  existing  condition  of  public  sentiment  Re- 
corder Hackett  does  not  dare  to  proceed  to  the  length  in  which 
did  in  this  attack  upon  the  Citizens'  Association,  yet  he  still  does 
all  in  his  power  to  save  his  friends  from  punishment. 

Morrissey,  O'Brien  and  Ben  W ood  are  his  warm  supporters, 
through,  whose  influence  he  obtained  the  anti-Tammany  nomi- 
nation. They  are  universally  kuown  as  gamblers  and  lottery- 
dealers,  and  would  be  injured  if  the  provisions  of  law  affecting 
their  interests  were  to  be  carried  out. 

The  following  comparison  between  the  charge  of  Recorder 
Hackett  to  the  Grand  Jury,  and  the  provisions  of  law  directing 
what  he  ought  to  charge,  affords  a  striking  example  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  performs  his  duty  as  Recorder,  so  as  to  protect 
Messrs.  Morrissey,  Wood  &  Co : 

Charge  to  the  Grand  Jury. 
(From  the  K  Y.  Herald  Sept.  8,  1875.) 

At  the  opening  of  the  Court  of  General  Sessions  yesterday 
Recorder  Hackett  delivered  the  following  significant  charge : 

"  I  am  required  by  sundry  special  statutes  to  invite  your  par- 
ticular attention  to  certain  vices  and  crimes.  First  gaming 
houses,  although  few,  except  private  clubs,  now  appear  to  exist. 
Second — Offenses  against  the  Excise  laws,  although  the  Commis- 
sioners seem  to  handle  the  subject  with  discrimination. 

Third — Emigrant  frauds,  although  the  preventives  and 
safeguards  established  under  the  earlier  regimes  of  Castle  Gar- 
den seemed  to  have  killed  them. 

Fourth — Lotteries  ;  but  these  are  entirely  drawn  in  States 
and  counties  where  law  permits  them. 

Nifth--  Usury  ;  although  the  buying  and  sale  of  commercial 
paper  and  securities  as  commodities  seem  to  have  superceded 
undue  discounts  or  interest  loans. 


21 


Sixth — Election  misdemeanors,  which  just  now  can  only  re- 
late to  those  which  may  occur  under  the  appointment  of  inspec- 
tors of  registration. 

In  addition  to  these  subjects  I  invite  your  attention  to  the 
prison  calendar.  The  Tombs  is  crowded  with  criminal  scholars 
and  graduates.  After  a  species  of  interregnum  to  vice  and 
crime  during  the  spring,  immorality  and  offences  seem  to  have 
constituted  throughout  the  summer  just  ending  almost  an  epide- 
mic, if  that  word  may  be  applied  to  diseased  conscience  and  per- 
verted will." 

The  following  are  the  provisrons  of  law  prescribing  what  such  a 
charge  should  contain : 

11  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  presiding  judge  of  every  Court  of  General  Sessioits  of  the 
Peace  specially  to  charge  every  Grand  Jury  to  inquire  into  all  violations  of  the  laws  against 
lotteries,  and  against  the  unlawful  selling  of  tickets  in  lotteries. " 

Chap.  20,  art.  4  of  part  1  of  Edmund's  Ed,  Rev.  Stat.,  sec  54. 

EXCISE. 

44  ft  shall  be  the  duty  of  Courts  to  instruct  Grand  Jurors  to  present  aH  persons  who  may 
tee  charged  with  adulterating  imported  or  other  intoxicating  liquors,  &c,  and  selling  the  same, 
Ac,  kc.» 

Chap.  6*28,  sec.  29  of  law  passed  April  16, 1837. 
ELECTION  FRAUDS. 

The  Recorder  is  also  required  to  "  specially"  charge  Grand  Juries  in  regard  to  the  subject  of 
election  frauds. 

Laws  of  1839,  chap.  389,  sec  18. 
OBSCENE  LITERATURE. 

"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Presiding  Judge  of  every  Court  of  Sessions,  or  Oyer  and  Ter 
miner,  within  tlus  State,  especially  to  charge  the  Grand  Jury,  at  each  term  qf  said  Court,  to 
lake  notice  of  all  offences  committed  in  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act." 
Laws  of  1868,  chap.  430,  sec.  4,  passed  April  28th. 

RECEIVING  ILLEGAL  FEES. 

"  It  shall  be  t>e  duty  of  every  Court  at  which  a  Grand  Jury  shall  be  summoned,  to  charge 
such  jury  specially  to  inquire  into  any  violations  of  law  by  public  officers  in  demanding 
charging" or  receiving  fees  to  which  they  are  not  entitled  by  law." 

Laws  of  1S47,  chap.  455,  sec.  17,  passed  Dec.  14th. 

DISCLOSING  PROCEEDINGS  OF  GRAND  JURIES. 

"In  charging  Grand  Juries  the  Court  shall  apprize  them  of  the  foregoing  provisiOH  for- 
bidding the  disclosure  of  the  fact  that  any  indictment  has  been  had." 

Part  4,  chap.  1,  tit.  6,  sec.  41,  of  rev.  stat.  (Edmunds  Ed.) 

Sackett  must  admit  his  ignorance  of  the  law  or  else  he  was 
guilty  of  three  distinct  misdemeanors  in  that  charge ;  to  wit,  in  not 
charging  in  reference  to  "Obscene  Literature" — "Illegal  fees" 
and  "  disclosing  proceedings.'4 

The  statute  reads,  "  Where  any  duty  shall  be  enjoined  by  law 
upon  any  public  officer,  or  upon  any  person  holding  any  public 
trust  or  employment,  every  wilful  neglect  to  perform  suah  duty 
where  no  special  provision  shall  have  been  made  for  the  punish- 
ment of  such  delinquency,  shall  be  a  misdemeanor,  punishable 
a-K  herein  prescribed." 

Part  4,  chap.  1,  tit.  6,  sec.  38,  rev.  stat.  (Edrm  Ed.)  Sec.  40  of 
same  chap,  prescribes  as  punishment  for  such  offense^  "  County 


22 


Jail  not  exceeding  one  year,  or  by  fine  not  exceeding  $250,  o? 
by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment." 

HIS  OMISSION  DELIBERATE  NOT  ACCIDENTAL. 

But  outside  of  his  failure  to  comply  with  the  statutes  his 
charge  was  still  more  outrageous  in  its  evident  intent  to  with- 
draw the  attention  of  the  jury  from  investigating  the  real  causes 
of  crime  in  this  city  which  the  law  made  it  his  duty  to  call  to 
their  attention. 

1st.  He  told  them  that  there  are  few,  if  any,  gambling  houses 
in  town. 

Everyone  knows  that  now  (under  the  very  noses  of  the  police) 
gambling  is  carried  on  in  every  part  of  the  city. 

2d.  He  tells  them  that  "  the  Commissioners  seem  to  handle  the 
Excise  Laws  with  discrimination,"  when  he  knew  perfectly 
well  that  there  were  a  large  number  of  persons  of  notor- 
iously bad  character,  selling  liquor  without  a  license 
throughout  the  city. 

3d.  He  withdraws  the  subject  of  lotteries  from  their  attention 
by  telling  them  "  that  they  are  entirely  drawn  in  states  and 
counties  where  the  law  permits  them." 

He  knew  at  the  time  he  then  tried  to  thus  mislead  the  Grand 
Jury,  that  there  were  hundreds  of  lottery  indictments  lying 
untried  in  the  District  Attorney's  office. 

He  knew  at  the  time  that  it  was  illegal  to  sell  a  lottery  ticket 
here,  even  though  the  lottery  was  drawn  in  a  state  which 
authorized  it. 

He  knew  at  the  time  that  it  had  been  determined  by  the  highest 
Court  in  the  State  that  it  was  a  misdemeanor  to  publish  an 
account  of  a  drawing  of  a  lottery  to  be  had  in  another  state, 
and  that  the  iaw  was  constantly  infringed. 
He  knew  at  the  Lime  that  he  made  that  charge  that  one  of  the 
principal  editors  of  one  of  the  city  newspapers  was  under 
indictment  for  breaking  the  law  on  this  subject,  and  that  h© 
was  daily  defying  the  law  by  repetitions  of  the  offence. 
He  also  knew  when  he  was  misleading  the  jury  in  this  way  that 
gambling,  selling  lottery  and  policy  tickets,  and  infringe- 
ment of  the  election  laws,  produced  more  private  and  public 
demoralization  than  anything  else,  and  led  to  most  of  the 
individual  crimes  he  was  called  upon  to  punish. 

Hackett's  Blunders  as  a  Judge. 
When  a  judicial  officer  who,  in  addition  to  his  duties  as  a 
criminal  Judge,  Supervisor  and  Commissioner  of  the  Sinking 
Fund,  for  which  he  receives  from  $15,000  to  $17,000  a  year,  un- 
dertakes to  earn  (?)  $15,000  a  year  in  addition  by  acting  as 
Assistant  Corporation  Counsel,  Commissioner  in  opening  Streets, 
and  kec]>ing  a  private  law  office,  he  naturally  cannot  be  expected- 


23 


to  be  very  conversant  with  his  duties  as  a  Judge,  or  to  make  him- 
self conversant  with  criminal  law,  consequently  it  is  not  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  find  Recorder  Hackett  constantly  making  the  most 
extraordinary  decisions.  Mr.  Peckham's  letter  shows  that  in 
the  case  of  quashing  the  Sweeny  indictments  Recorder  iiackett 
decided  erroneously.  Still,  the  friendly  relations  which  existed 
between  Hackett  and  the  Ring  were  such  that  it  would  be  more 
proper  to  ascribe  this  decision  to  friendship,  gratitude  for  past 
favors,  or  some  other  similar  influence  than  that  of  mistake. 

In  the  majority  of  cases  tried  before  Recorder  Hackett  the 
parties  are  poor  and  friendless  and  unable  to  bear  the  expense 
of  an  appeal,  but  in  those  cases  where  appeals  are  taken  the 
proportion  of  his  decisions  which  are  reversed  are  greater  than 
those  of  any  other  judge  who  sits  on  the  bench. 

Thus,  out  of  forty-nine  appeals  that  have  been  found  to 
have  been  taken  from  his  decisions  (being  all  that  were  taken 
from  January  19, 1863,  to  March  5,  1875),  no  less  than  twenty- 
two  (22)  reversals  were  reported. 

The  cases  reversed  on  appeal  from  the  Court  of  Sessions 
were  as  follows  : — 


Name  of  Prisoner. 


John  Piweell. 

Margaret  Welch. 

John  Wilson. 

Louis  Baccio. 

James  Hannegan. 

Jerome  Bradley. 

Patrick  McDonald. 

Henry  W.  Gaston. 

Henry  McCord. 

Frederick  N.  Remsen. 

Thomas  Lookup  Evans. 

William  H.  McNevin. 

Ann  E.  Burns. 

William  Marx. 

Jacob  Rosenweig. 

Henry  Newman,  alias  -  'Dutch 

Heinrich." 
Charles  Moore. 
Abraham  Greenthal. 
Wm.  J.  Barclay. 
Thomas  Bell. 
Anthony  0.  Jones. 
Walter  Brown,  alias  John 

Wood. 
Peter  Woods. 
Elisabeth  Ormby. 
Patrick  Carn. 
Edward  Murphy. 
Duncan  D.  Templeton. 
Thomas  Lanahan. 
Frederick  Evers. 
Thomas  Cunningham. 
James  Burke. 


The  Judge 
before  whom 
tried. 


Hackett. 
Hackett. 
Hackett. 
Hacfcett. 
Hackett. 
Hackett. 
Bedford. 
Hackett. 
Hackett. 
Hackett. 
Bedford. 
Bedford. 
Hackett. 
Hackett. 
Hackett. 

|  Hackett. 

'  Hackett. 
Bedford. 
Hackett. 
Hackett. 
Bedfoid. 

|  Sutherland 

Hackett. 

Sutherland 

Hackett. 

Hackett. 

Hackett. 

Sutherland 

Hackett. 

Hackett. 

Hackett. 


By  which  Court  overruled  an* 
New  Trial  granted. 


Supreme  Court.  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term, 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term, 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 

J  Sup.  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 

Court  of  Appeals. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Tenn. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Court  of  Appeals. 

|  Court  of  Appeals. 

Court  of  Appeals. 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Snpreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Court  of  Appeals. 
Supreme  Court,  Genl  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 
Supreme  Court,  Gen'l  Term. 


24 


Recorder  Hackett's  preeminent  abilities  as  a  Judge  further 
appear  from  the  fact  that  while  his  decisions  have  been  reversed 
ticenty-tivo  times,  those  of  his  colleagues,  Judges  Bedford  and 
Sutherland,  have  together  been  reversed  but  eight  times. 

Does  not  this  show  him  to  be  a  very  Daniel  come  to 
judgment  ? 

Hackett's  Justice. 

The  length  to  which  this  statement  has  extended  will  only 
permit  a  brief  reference  to  the  partial  character  Rof  ecorder 
Hackett's  decisions : 

On  October  5th,  1875,  Hackett  sentenced  Charles  H.  Mad- 
den, aged  twenty,  to  twenty  years'  imprisonment  for  entering  his 
mother's  room  and  taking  eight  dollars  from  her  dress,  which 
lay  on  a  table,  his  father  having  forbidden  him  the  house,  on 
the  ground  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  burglary,  it  being 
extremely  doubtful  whether  the  entrance  of  a  minor  into  his 
own^father's  house  constituted  such  an  offence.  It  is  also  but 
a  short  time  since  that  he  sentenced  a  poor  Spaniard  to  impris- 
onment for  life  for  setting  fire  to  his  store. 

Yet  in  the  case  of  the  notorious  "  Johnny  the  Greek,"  one 
of  the  most  dangerous  pickpockets  ever  known,  who  was  con- 
victed of  a  daring  larcency  in  a  stage,  and  who  richly  deserved 
the  full  punishment  allowed  by  the  law,  this  "just  judge" 
imposed  a  sentence  of  two  years  and  six  months,  just  half  the 
full  ['penalty,  owing,  it  has  been  publicly  asserted  and  never 
denied,  to  the  intercession  of  the  notorious  "  Jim  "  Irving,  who 
sat  at  Hackett's  feet  duriing  the  trial. 

In  a  short  time  after  "  Johnny "  was  again  arrested  and 
brought  before  Hackett,  who  accepted  a  plea  of  an  attempt  to 
commit  grand  larcency,  and  imposed  a  sentence  of  one  year. 

"  Johnny,"  of  course,  escaped  in  a  few  weeks  and  was  again 
arrested  and  discharged  subsequently  on  some  hocm  poms  with- 
out ever  been  committed  to  serve  out  his  term. 

In  vtew  of  these  facts,  who  can  say  that  John  K. 
Hackett  should  be  re-elected  as  Kecokdeh? 

A. 

Statement  of  feos  paid  Recorder  John  E.  Hackett  for  services 
in  assisting  Corporation  Counsel  O'Gorman. 

FROM  JANUARY  1,   1866  TO  AUGUST  31,  1867. 

Contingencies — Law  Department. 
Jan.  24 — John  K.  Hackett,  for  professional  services  during  the 
year  18G6,  in  tho  following  suits  vs.  the  Mayor  et  a!,  of 
Hew  York  City  : 


25 


Jan.    5 — Trying  action  of  Alexander  White  vs.  The 

Mayor  et  al   $175  00 

Jan.  15 — Trying  action  of  Wm.  White,  administrator, 

vs.  The  Mayor  et  al   500  00 

Jan.  19 — Trying  action  of  Phillip  Mass  v&  The  Mayor 

et  al   100  GO 

Jan.  24 — Trying  action  of  Timmons  vs.  The  Mayor  et  al.  50  00 

Feb.  9 — Trying  action  of  W.  L.   Northam  vs.  The 

Mayor  et  al   100  00 

Retaining  fee,  &c,  Wheaton  vs.  The  Mayor 

et  al   50  00 

Retaining  fee  and  services  in  Hudson  River 
Railroad  Company  vs.  William  R.  Travers, 
Deputy  City  Inspector   100  00 

Feb.  10 — Retaining  fee  and  attendance  in  suit  Kenzie 

Brice  vs.  The  Mayor  et  al   50  00 

Retaining  fee  and  various  attendances  and 
trying  action  of  The  Mayor  et  al.  vs.  De  Witt 

O.  Allen  et  al   500  00', 

Trying  action  of  James  Q.  Smith  v&  The 

Mayor  et  al.,  before  A.  B.  Tappan,  referee.  . ..         250  00 

Trying  action  of  Gideon  Lee  Knapp  vs.  The 

Mayor  et  al.,  before  J.  B.  Haskin,  referee   500  00 

Trying  action  of  Miller  &  Coates  vs.  The 
Mayor  et  al.,  before  James  Kent,  esq.,  re- 
feree  250  0© 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 
Ludlam  Carnell  and  George  W.  Watson  vs. 

The  Mayor  et  al   250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 
Winkleman  vs.  The  Mayor  et  al   100  00 

March  — Professional  services  in  the  matter  of  The 
Mandamus  ex  rel.  J.  F.  Daly  vs.  The  Board 
of  Supervisors,  to    compel  books  of  Court 

House  Committee  to  be  filed   100  00- 

Trying  action   of  Charles  Oakley  vs.  The 

Mayor  et  al.,  before  O'Connor,  referee   250  00 

Trying  action  of  Kenzie  Brice  vs.  The  Mayor 

eta!   100  00 

Mar/ 13 — Professional  services  and  argument  of  appeal 
in  Henry  Harnstein,  appellant,  vs.  The  Mayor, 

&c,  respondent   150  00 

Professional  services  in  The  People  ex  rel. 
O'Brien  vs.  The  Members  of  the  Common 

Council,  contempt  case  —         100  00 

Retaining    fee,    professional    services  and. 

attendance  at  five  terms  in  the  action  of  Henrv 

G.  Cox  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c,  claim  of  $25,000...        500  00 

Retaining  fee,  professional  services  and  trying 

action  of  Stillman  Wilt  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. . . .         250  00 

Professional  services  in  appeal  to  C®iut  of 


26 


Appeals  and  argument  of  Hanghwout  vs.  The 

Mayor,  &c   500  00 

Mar.  27 — Professional  services  arguing  motion  in  Court 
of  Appeals  in  Maynicke  vs.  The  Mayor,  and 
travelling  expenses   227  50 

April  16 — Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  the 
action  of  Jesse  S.  Marshall  vs.  John  T.  Hoff- 
man, Mayor,  &c,  and  Metropolitan  Public 

Conveyance  Company   100  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 
Odell  vs.  The  Mayor,  M.  T.  Brennan  and 

David  S.  Valentine   150  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional   services  in 

William  P.  Williams  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   150  00 

Retaining  fee  aud  professional  services  in 
Joseph  Churchill  vs  The  Mayor,  and  arguing 
demurrer   250  00 

May  10 — Retaining  fee  and  trying  action  of  Peter  Mor- 
ris vs.  The  Mayor   250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  The 

Tribune  Association  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   100  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  The 
People  ex  rel.  Riker  vs.  Matthew  T.  Brennan, 
Comptroller,  to  pay  award  of  $29,000  manda- 
mus denied   150  00 


Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  the 
following  injunction  actions  to  restrain  the 
public  sale  of  various  piers,  bulkheads,  &c., 
&c. :  New  York  and  Havre  Steamship  Com- 
pany vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  New  York  Balance 
Dock  Company  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  Marshall 
O.  Roberts  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c;  Stephen  Con- 
dit  Transportation  Company  vs.  The  Mayor, 


&c;  Russell  Sturgisvs.  The  Mayor.  &c     500  00 

May  22 — Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  pre- 
paring case  on  appeal  in  Berrian  vs.  The 
Mayor,  &c   100  00 


$6,902  50 

May  24 — Argument  in  contempt  case  of  The  People  ex 
rel.  Richard  O'Brien  vs.  Healey  and  eleven 

others  of  the  Board  of  Councilmen   100  00 

Professional  services  and  trying  action  of 
.  Daniel  O'Neil  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   125  00 

May  31 — Professional  service  and  trying  action  of  An- 
drew McCool  vs.  The  Mayor.  &c,  before  O'- 

Conor,  referee   250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  the 
action  of  International  Insurance  Company  vs. 
The  Mayor,  &c,  Board  of  Supervisors  and 
Holden  Marshall,  &c   250  00 

June  14 — Retaining  fee  and  trying  action  of  Dorotha 

Behrens  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   150  00 


27 


Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  and 
trying  action   of  Hatfield   vs.   The  Mayer, 

&c  .   150  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  the 
following  entitled  actions  viz:  National  Broad- 
way Bank  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  Corn  Exchange 
Bank  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  Metropolitan  Na- 
tional Bank  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  Park  Na- 
tional Bank  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c;  Bank  of 
Commerce  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  Phenix  Na- 
tional Bank  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  National  Shoe 
and  Leather  Bank  vs.  The  Mayor  &c. ;  Galla- 
tin National  Bank  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c;  The 
People  ex  tel.  Francis  A.  Palmer  vs.  The 
Mayor,  &c. ;  The  People  ex  rel.  Henry  J.  Beers 
vs.  The  Mayor,  &c. ;  The  People  ex  rel.  John 
Bodine  vs.  The  Mayor  &c;  The  People  ex  rel. 
Wm.  K.  Ketckum  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c;  The 
People  ex  rel.  John  Gr.  Williams  vs.  The 
Mayor,  &c. ;  The  People  ex  reL  David  Dows 


vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   1,000  00 

July  19 — Arguing  motion  in  opposition  to  an  extra  al- 
lowance in  Hatfield  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   25  00 

Aug.  16 — To  retaining  fee  and  arguing  motion  to  show 
cause  why  a  mandamus  should  not  issue  to 
compel  the  Comptroller  to  issue  bonds  for 

Lowber  Market   250  00 

To  retaining  fee  in  injunction  suit  The  People 
ex  rel.  Ann  Walter  et  al.  vs.  The  Mayor  and 
N.  Y.  and  Harlem  R.  R.  Company   250  00 

Aug.  17 — To  ret  am  in  g  fee  and  trying  action  of  Ann 
Orderson  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c,  before  Baldwin, 
referee   250  00 

Aug.  20 — Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 
Alexander  T.  Stewart  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c,  and 

Aerial  Railway  Company   250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  the 
action  of  Christopher  Pullman  vs.  the  Mayor, 

&c.  (in  re.  Manhattan  Gas  Company)   250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  the 
People  ex  rel.  A.  T.  Stewart  vs.  The  Mayor, 

&c...... .   150  00 

Retaining  fee,  preparing  case,  points  and  argu- 
ments ot  appeal  at  General  Term,  Miller  & 
Coates,  respondents,  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c,  ap- 
pellants •   250  00 

Sept.  14 — Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  argu- 
ing motion  for  a  mandamus  in  the  action  of 
The  People  ex  reL  J.  T.  Henry  vs.  Charles  G. 
Cornell,  Street  Commissioner   150  00 

Nov.  10 — Retaining  fee,  preparing  case  and  points  and 
arguing  appeal  in  Supreme  Court,  Hickson 
Sailes  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   250  00 


28 


Retaining  fee,  preparing  case  and  points  and 
arguing  appeal  at  General  Term  Superior 
Court,  Stellman  Nitt  vs.  The  Mayor  &c.,  res- 
pondents  250  00 

Retaining  fee,  preparing  case  and  points  in 
appeal  Angus  Ross  vs.  The  Mayor  &c,  General 

Term  Supreme  Court   150  0© 

Retaining  fee,  professional  services  and  trying 

action  of  Luke  Casey  vs.  The  Mayor  &c   250  00 

Retaining  fee,  professional  services  and  trying 

action  of  Charles  Cousins  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c.         250  00 

Nov.  19* — Retaining  fee,  professional  services  and  trying 

action  of  Daniel  F.  Kimball  vs.  The  Mayor.         250  00 
Professional  services,  and  trying  action  of 
Churchill  vs.  The  Mayor,   &c,  for  $29,000 

damages  before  Tappan,  referee   600  00 

Retaining  fee,  preparing  case  and  points  and 
argument  of  appeal  before  Supreme  Court  at 
Washington,  Sheffield  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   500  00 

Dec.   Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 

Jacob  B.  Smith  vs.  The  Mayor   100  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 

Manuel  A.  White  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   100  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  Ar- 
thur Gentle  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   100  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  try- 
ing action  of  Manhattan  Gas  Company  vs. 

The  Mayor,  &c   100  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 

Louis  Frey  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c    100 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  John 

Burn  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   100  €0 

Retaining  fee  and  profes  donal   services  in 

John  Campbell  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c  < .         100  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  service  in  Al- 
bert Siebert  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   100  m 


1867.  Total  for  1866   $13,727.50 

9 — T  r_ee  days  attendance  and  arguing  appeal  in 
case  Alanson  T.  Briggs  vs.  The  Mayor,  Sec, 

General  Term  Common  Pleas   250  00 

Jan.  18 — Five  days  attendance,  trial  of  cause  four  days, 

Angus  Ross  v  %  The  Mayor,  Aldermen  &c. . .  .         750  01 
Jan.  20 — Attendance  at  the  General  Term  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  preparing  case  and  points  in  the 
1  "IJ#*       People  m  rel.  O'Brien  vs.  Healy  and  others. 250  00 
Jan.  23 — Professional  services  and  trying   action  of 

Manuel  A.  White  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   150  00 


Jan.  24 — Retaining  fee,  professional  services  and  try- 
ing action  of  Brown  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c,  some 
principals  affecting  and  controlling  twenty- 


29 

eight  claims  of  a  similar  character;  plaintiff 

non-suited   1,000  00 

Retaing  fee  and  professional  services  in  the  fol- 
lowing cases,  viz.  :  The  People  ex  rel.  National 
Bank  Republic  vs.  J.  T.  Hoffman,  R  B.  Con- 
nolly and  J.  B.  Young";  The  People  ex  rel. 
Broadway  Bank  vs.  J.  T.  Hoffman,  R.  B.  Con- 
nollv  and  J.  B  Young  ;  The  People  ex  reL 
Bank  New  York  vs.  J.  T.  Hoffman,  R.  B.  Con- 
nolly and  J.  B.  Young  ;  The  People  ex  rel. 
Ocean  National  Bank  vs.  J.  T,  Hoffman,  R.  B. 
Connolly  and  J.  B.  Young  ;  The  People  ex  reL 
St.  Nicholas  Bank  vs.  J.  T.  Hoffman,  R.  B. 


Connolly  and  J.  B.  Young   2,000.00 

March. — The  People  ex  rel.  Brazil  Mail  Steamship  Co. 

vs.  The  Commissioners  of  Taxes  and  Assess- 
ment (attorney  and  counsel  fees)   250  00 

Mar.  22 — Professional  services  and  trying  cause  of  Lem- 
non  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c,  in  Common  Pleas  ; 
Complaint  dismissed   150  00 

Mar.  25 — Professional  services,  attendance  in  court  and 
arranging  settlement  of  action  of  Angus  Ross 

vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   150  0 

Professional  services  and  trying  the  following 
actions,  viz.  :  Mary  E.  Waters  vs.  The  Mayor, 
&c.  ;  Jos.  W.  B.  Smith  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c., 
(discontined)  ;  Walter  Clark  vs.  The  Mayor, 
&c.  ;  Catharine  Reed  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   400  00 

Mar.  25 — Professional  services,  retaining  fee  and  prepar- 
ing ease  on  appeal,  Miller  &  Coates  vs.  The 

The  Mayor,  &c.  ;  specific  performance   150|00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in 
Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Co.  vs.  The  Mayor  and 

Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund   250  00 

Professional  services  in  The  People  ex  rel. 
Market   Commissioners   vs.    The  Co/imion 

Council  0..  .  250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  in  Wil- 
liam H.  Angell  vs." The  Mayor,  &c   '!       250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  trying  ] 

cause  of  Peter  Thompson  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c .         250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  trying 

cause  of  James  Gilmartit*  vs.  The  Mayor.  &c...         250  00 

Retaining  foe  and  professional  rcrvices  Hying 

cause  of  .Ross  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c   250  00 

Professional  services  in  trying  cause  of 
Churchill  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c ,  before  Tappan, 

referee   250  00 

Professional  services  in  trial  of  cause  of  Oak- 
ley vs.  The  Major,  &c,  before  O'Connor,  re- 
feree  250  00 


30 

Professional  services  in  trial  of  cause  of  James 
M.  Smith  vs.  The  Mayor,  &c,  A.  B.  Tappan, 

referee   250  00 

Retaining  fee  and  professional  services  and 
trying  cause  of  Morris  Ketchum  vs.  The  Mayor, 
&c,  Superior  Court  '   250  00 

Total  for  1867,   8,000  00 

Aggregate   $21,727  50 

"B." 

Extracts  from  the  minutes  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sink- 
ing Fund  in  regard  to  the  Traphagen  Contract. 
At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Sinking  Fund, 
held  June  19,  1871. 

Present :  A.  Oakey  Hall,  Mayor. 

John  K.  Hackett,  Recorder. 
Richard  B.  Connolly,  Comptroller. 
J.  G.  Dhnond,     Ch.   Fin.  Com. 

Board  of  Aldermen. 
The  Recorder  submitted  the  following  Resolution,  which  on 
motion  was  adopted,  viz  : 

Whereas,  it  is  represented  to  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  that  William  C.  Traphagen,  Esq.,  of  the  City  of 
New  York,  is  possessed  of  knowledge  that,  (and  how)  some 
pieces,  parcels  and  rights  of  property  belonging  to  the  Corpo- 
ration of  New  York,  to  which  at  the  present,  said  Corporation  do 
not  make  claim,  and  : 

Whereas,  The  same  is  however  claimed  and  held  br 
others  adversely  to  the  Corporation  and  without  legal  title  from 
it,  and : 

Whereas.  The  said  Commissioners  are  willing  without  ac- 
complishing injustice  to  reduce  to  the  possession  of  the  Corpo- 
ration, and  to  it  make  available  all  the  said  property,  and : 

Whereas,  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sink- 
ing Fund,  as  Trustees  of  City  property,  to  maintain  any  and  all 
legal  title  to  the  property  of  the  said  Corporation,  and  : 

Whereas,  The  said  William  C.  Traphagen  is  willing  upon 
certain  conditions  to  be  agreed  upon  to  give  to  these  Commis- 
sioners information  of  fact  which  will  enable  the  Corporation 
aforesaid  to  obtain  possession  of  the  pieces,  parcels  and  rights 
of  property  above  referred  to.    Now  therefore, 


Resolved,  That  Recorder  Hackett  and  Comptroller  Con- 
nolly, be  and  hereby  are  appointed  a  committee  with  power,  and 
are  directed  to  enter  into  and  conclude  a  proper  agreement  with 
the  said  William  C.  Traphagen,  and  in  such  manner  and  form 
as  to  them  shall  seem  best,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  to  the 
said  Corporation  of  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  said 
pieces,  parcels  and  rights  of  property,  which  agreement  shall 
embody  a  contingent  (only)  compensation  to  be  paid  to  said 
Williajn  C.  Traphagen,  and  whatever  litigation  shall  become 
necessary  shall  be  conducted  by  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation 
m  connection  with  said  William  C.  Traphagen. 

Signed,  A.  Oakey  Hall,  Mayor. 

John  K.  Hackett,  Recorder. 
Richard  B.  Connolly,  Comptroller. 
John  E.  Dimond,   Chr.  Finance 
Com.  Bd.  of  Aid. 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund, 
held  at  the  Comptroller's  office  July  25,  1871,  present — A. 
Oakey  Hall,  Mayor,  J ohn  K.  Hackett,  Recorder,  Richard  B. 
Connolly,  Comptroller,  James  E.  Dimond,  Chairman  Fin.  Com. 
Board  of  Aldermen,  the  following  report  of  the  Committee  ap- 
pointed June  19,  1871,  with  power  to  enter  into  and  conclude  a 
proper  agreement  with  William  C.  Traphagan,  in  relation  to  se- 
curing to  the  corporation  possession  of  pieces,  parcels,  and  rights 
of  property  held  by  others  adversely  to  the  corporation  with- 
out legal  title,  was  received,  viz  : 

To  the  Honorable 

the  Commission  of  the  Sinking  Fund 

of  the  City  of  New  York. 
We,  the  undersigned,  who,  by  resolution  of  your  body, 
passed  on  the  19th  June,  1871,  were  appointed  a  Committee 
with  power,  and  were  directed  to  enter  into  and  conclude  a  pro- 
per agreement  with  William  C.  Traphagan,  and  in  such  manner 
and  form  as  to  us  should  seem  best  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
to  the  Corporation,  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  certain 
pieces,  parcels  and  rights  of  property  belonging  to  them,  and 


32 


situated  in  the  said  City  and  County  of  New  York,  do  respect- 
fully report  as  follows  :  That  we  have  entered  into,  concluded 
and  executed  an  agreement  with  said  Traphagan  in  conformity 
with,  and  under  the  authority  of  the  resolution  above  referred, 
and  which  said  agreement  (which  has  been  executed  in  dupli- 
cate) accompanies  this  report,  dated  July  20th,  1871. 

Signed, 

John  K.  Hackett,  Recorder. 
Eichaed  B.  Connolly,  Comptroller. 

On  motion,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted,  viz  : 
Besolved,  That  the  report  of  Messrs.  Hackett,  Recorder,  and 
Connolly,  Comptroller,  in  and  by  which  it  appears  that  they, 
under  the  authorization  of  this  Board,  and  on  behalf  of  the 
Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
have  entered  into  an  agreement  with  William  C.  Traphagan, 
Esq.,  be  adopted ;  and  further,  that  the  said  agreement  be 
adopted  as  the  act  of  this  Board,  and  that  the  same,  together 
with  the  report  of  said  Committee,  be  entered  at  length  upon 
the  minutes. 

The  agreement  referred  to  above  is  as  follows,  viz  : 
Whereas,  At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund  held  June  19th,  1871,  the  following  preamble  and  resolution 
were  unanimously  adopted,  viz  : 

Whereas,  It  is  represented  to  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  that  William  C.  Traphagen,  Esq.,  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  is  possessed  of  knowledge  that  (and  how)  some 
pieces,  parcels  and  rights  of  property  belong  to  the  Corporation 
of  New  York  to  which  at  present  said  corporation  do  not  make 
claim  ;  and 

Whereas,  The  same  is  however  claimed  and  held  by  others 
adversely  to  the  Corporation,  and  without  legal  title  from  it ; 
and 

Whereas,  The  said  Commissioners  are  willing,  without  ac- 
complishing injustice,  to  reduce  to  the  possession  of  the  Corpora- 
tion, and  to  it  make  available  all  the  said  property  ;  and 

Whereas,  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sink- 
ing Fund,  as  trustees  of  city  property,  to  maintain  any  and  all 
legal  title  to  the  property  of  the  said  Corporation  ;  and 

Whereas,  The  said  William  C.  Traphagen  is  willing,  upon 
certain  conditions  to  be  agreed  upon,  to  give  to  these  Commis- 


35 

sioners  information  of  facts  which  will  enable  the  Corporation 
aforesaid  to  obtain  possession  of  the  pieces,  parcels  and  rights 
of  property  above  referred  to. 

Now,  Therefore,  Resolved,  That  Recorder  Hackett  and  Comp- 
troller Connolly  be,  and  hereby  are  appointed  a  Committee  with 
powers,  and  are  directed  to  enter  into  and  conclude  a  proper 
agreement  with  the  said  William  C.  Traphagen,  and  in  such 
manner  and  form  as  to  them  shall  seem  best,  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  to  the  said  Corporation  of  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and 
Commonalty  of  tb  City  of  New  York,  the  possession  and  enjoy- 
ment of  the  said  pieces,  parcels  and  rights  of  property  which 
agreement  shall  embody  a  contingent  (only)  compensation  to  be 
paid  to  said  William  C.  Traphagen,  and  whatever  litigation  shall 
become  necessary  shall  be  conducted  by  the  Counsel  to  the  Cor- 
poration in  connection  with  said  William  C.  Traphagen. 

And  Whereas,  Also  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Comptroller  of  the 
city  of  NeAv  York  to  prevent  encroachments  on  property  belong- 
ing to  the  Corporation  ;  and 

Whereas,  The  comptroller  is  willing,  without  accomplishing 
injustice,  to  reduce  to  the  possession  of  the  corporation,  and 
make  available  the  said  property. 

Now,  in  pursuance  of  such  resolution  aforesaid,  and  of  the 
premises  this  agreement,  made  the  twentieth  day  of  July,  A.  D. 
1871,  between  the  corporation  of  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monalty of  the  city  of  New  York,  through  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Sinking  Fund,  and  the  Comptroller  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
of  the  first  part,  and  William  C.  Traphagen,  of  the  said  city,  of 
the  second  part. 

Vfitnesseth,  That  for  and  in  consideration  of  one  dollar  in 
liand  paid  by  each  of  the  parties  to  the  other,  the  receipt 
whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged  as  well  as  in  consideration  of 
the  agreements  hereinafter  named  between  the  parties. 

The  party  of  the  first  part  agrees  to  pay  to  the  party  of  the 
second  part  a  sum  of  money  equal  to  the  one-half  of  the  value 
of  each  and  all  the  pieces,  parcels  and  rights  of  property,  of 
which  they  shall  become  possessed  through  information  given 
to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  by  liim  ;  and  it  is 
further  agreed  between  the  parties  to  these  presents  that  the 
value  of  each  piece,  parcel  or  right  of  property  as  soon  as  it 
shall  come  into  the  possession  of  the  party  of  the  first  part 
shall  be  fixed  if  possible  by  an  agreement  in  writing  in  duplicate 


34 

between  the  parties  signed  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking: 
Fund  on  the  part  of  the  party  of  the  first  part,  and  by  the  party 
of  the  second  part  on  his  own  behalf,  one  of  the  said  duplicates 
to  be  retained  by  each  of  the  parties  hereto,  and  in  case  such 
agreement  as  to  value  be  so  executed,  then  the  Mayor,  Alder- 
men and  Commonalty  shall  within  five  days  thereafter  pay  to 
the  party  of  the  second  part  a  sum  equal  to  the  one-half  of  the 
value  thus  fixed  which  payment  to  be  made  through  the  Comp- 
troller of  the  City  of  New  York  on  the  party  of  the  second  part, 
presenting  to  him  his  duplicate  of  the  certificate  of  value  signed 
as  above  provided. 

And  in  case  the  said  Commissioners  and  the  party  of  the 
second  part  shall  fail  to  agree  upon  a  valuation  of  any  piece  or 
parcel,  or  right  of  property,  within  twenty  days  after,  the  party 
of  the  first  part  shall  become  possessed  of  such  piece,  parcel  or 
right  of  property  then,  and  in  that  case  such  piece  or  parcel,  or 
right  of  property  in  regard  to  which  there  is  such  a  failure, 
shall  be  sold  at  public  auction  to  the  highest  bidder  by  the  said 
Commissioners  within  forty  days,  after  the  expiration  of  the 
above  twenty  days,  in  which  the  said  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund,  and  the  party  of  the  second  part  are  given  herein 
to  agree  upon  a  valuation,  and  if  upon  such  sale  the  party  of 
the  second  part  shall  become  the  purchaser  then,  and  in  such 
case  he  shall  be  obliged,  but  one-half  of  the  purchase  money,, 
and  give  a  receipt  to  the  party  of  the  first  part  for  the  other  one- 
half  of  the  purchase  money,  and  thereupon  a  proper  conveyance 
of  the  piece,  parcel  or  right  of  property  shall  at  once  be  made 
to  him  by  the  Corporation  of  the  Mayor;  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monalty of  the  City  of  New  York. 

But  if  upon  such  sale  the  party  of  the 'first  part  shall  become 
the  purchaser  or  bid  the  property  in,  then  it  shall  within  five 
days  after  such  sale  pay  through  the  Comptroller  of  the  city  of 
New  York  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  pact  a  sum  equal  to 
the  one-half  part  of  the  net  sum  bid  by  it  on  such  sale ;  and  if  a 
third  party  shall  become  the  purchaser  at  such  sale  then  the 
said  party  of  the  first  part  shall  within  five  days  after  it  receives 
the  purchase  price  of  such  property,  through  the  said  comp- 
troller pay  to  the  party  of  the  second  part,  on  his  receipt  for 
the  same  the  net  one-half  of  the  price  for  which  such  property^ 
was  sold,  and  so  as  to  each  piece;  parcel  or  right  of  property  in 


35 


reference  to  which  there  is  a  failure  by  the  commissioners  of  the 
sinking  fund,  and  the  party  of  the  second  part  to  agree  upon 
value. 

And  tha  party  of  the  first  part  further  agrees  to  advance  to 
the  said  |*arty  of  the  second  part  all  the  money  that  it  shall  be 
necessary  for  him  to  disburse  in  maintaining  and  asserting  the 
rights  of  the  corporation  of  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Common- 
alty of  the  city  of  New  York  to  the  pieces,  parcels  and  rights  of 
property  referred  to  in  the  resolution  of  the  commissioners  of 
the  sinking  fund  above  recited ;  and  it  is  further  agreed  that 
such  money  shall  be  disbursed  under  the  direction  of  the  Re- 
corder of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  Comptroller  aforesaid,  and 
that  all  such  money  so  advanced  by  the  party  of  the  first  part 
shall  be  returned  to  it  by  the  party  of  the  second  part  out  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  first  property  reduced  to  possession  (after 
such  advance)  by  the  corporation  of  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and 
Commonalty  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

And  the  party  of  the  first  part  agrees  that  whenever  the  party 
of  the  second  part  shall  show  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund  that  the  Corporation  of  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Common- 
ality of  the  City  of  New  York  have  rights  in  or  to  any  piece,  parcel, 
or  lights  of  property  to  which  at  present  it  does  not  make  claim,  and: 
which  is  claimed  and  held  by  others  adversedly  to  it,  and  without 
any  legal  title  from  it,  the  party  of  t  the  first  part  will  immediately 
cause  proceedings  to  be  taken  by  the  counsel  of  the  Corporation  in 
connection  with  the  party  of  the  second  part,  either  by  suit  or  other- 
wise as  to  them  (said  counsel  and  said  party  of  the  second  part), 
shall  deem  best  for  the  recovery  thereof  ;  and  such  proceedings  shall 
not  be  discontinued  or  unnecessarily  delayed  or  compromised  02. 
settled  without  the  consent  of  the  party  of  the  second  part. 

And  if  by  the  joint  agreement  and  concurrence  of  the  respective 
parties  of  the  first  part  and  second  part,  there  shall  be  any  settle- 
ment of  the  claim  of  the  party  of  the  first  part,  or  its  rights  in  res- 
pect to  the  property  aforesaid,  or  any  part  or  parcel  thereof  by  the 
payment  on  the  part  of  the  latter  of  monies,  then  the  amount  of 
monies  of  such  payment  shall  be  equally  divided  between  the  parties 
of  the  first  part  and  the  second  part,  upon  the  execution  of  quit 
claim  deeds  by  the  party  of  the  first  part  to  the  third  parties  in 
possession. 

And  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  agrees  to  fully  inform 
the  said  Commissioners  of  the  linking  Fund  of  the  interest  of  the 
party  of  the  first  part  in  and  to  the  pieces,  parcels,  and  rights  of 


36 


property  in  the  above  resolution  referred  to,  in  wkat  they  consist, 
■where  located,  and  how  they  arise. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  parties  hereto  have  hereunto  set  their 
hands  and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

Witness  as  to  W.  C.  Traphagex, 
(Signed)  James  O'Neill. 
[LuS.]  (Signed)  W.  C.  Traphagex. 

(Signed)  C.  W.  Lawrence,  ) 
as  to  all.  f 

Signed,  Jomi  K.  Hackett,  Recorder,  City  of  New  York. 

Signed,  Richard  B.  Connolly, 

[L.S.]  Controller  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

Slate  of  New  York,  City  and  County  of  New  York  ss. 

On  the  twentieth  day  of  July,  1871,  before  me  came  Jokn  K. 
Hackett,  Recorder  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  Richard  B.  Con- 
nolly, Comptroller  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  on  the  twenty-first 
day  of  July,  1871,  before  me  came  William  C.  Traphagen,  to  me 
severally  known  to  be  the  persons  described  in  and  who  executed  the 
the  within  instrument,  and  they  severally  acknowledged  to  me  that 
they  executed  such  instrument  for  the  purposes  therein  contained. 

Signed,  C.  W.  Lawrence,  Notary  Public, 

City  and  County  of  New  York. 


Signed,  A.  Oakey  Hall,  Mayor. 

John  K.  Hackett,  Recorder. 
Richard  B.  Connolly,  Comptroller. 
Jas.  E.  Diamond,  chr.  Fin.  com.  of 
Board  of  Aid. 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund 
held  at  the  Comptroller's  office,  March  25,  1874.  Present, 

W.  F.  Havemeyer,  Mayor. 

John  K.  Hackett,  Recorder. 

Andrew  H.  Green,  Comptroller. 

Geo.  W.  Lane,  CJuzfiberlain, 

J.  Van  ScfHAiOK,  Ch.  Fin.  Com..  ITd  (/Aid. 


ST 


The  comptroller  submitted  the  following  preamble  and  re- 
solutions, viz.  : 

Whereas,  On  the  minutes  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sink- 
ing Fund  there  appears  a  writing  purporting  to  be  an  agree- 
ment entered  into  on  the  20th  of  July,  1871,  between  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Sinking  Fund  and  one  William  C.  Traphagen, 
relative  to  furnishing  information  in  relation  to  the  recovery  of 
city  property  held  adversely  to  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monalty of  the  city  of  New  York  ;  and 

Whereas,  The  commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  are  of 
the  opinion  that  said  pretended  agreement  is  without  authority 
of  law,  and  wholly  inoperative  and  void,  and  that,  if  said  pre- 
tended agreement  were  to  be  deemed  and  held  binding  and  valid 
and  effective  by  the  commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  the  in- 
terests of  the  city  would  be  greatly  embarrassed  and  damnified 
and  great  loss  would  accrue  ;  and 

Whereas,  The  said  pretended  agreement  would,  if  held  valid, 
afford  great  opportunity  for  oppressive  measures  upon  innocent 
parties  ;  therefore,  be  it — 

Resolved,  That  a  certain  resolution  of  the  commissioners  of 
the  Sinking  Fund,  purporting  to  authorize  the  execution  of  such 
-pretended  agreement,  and  the  pretended  adoption  thereof  as 
the  act  of  the  commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  on  the  twenty- 
fifth  day  of  July,  1871,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  vacated  and 
set  aside,  rescinded,  abrogated  and  cancelled,  and  that  such 
pretended  agreement  is  hereby  declared  to  be  void,  and  of  no 
force  or  effect,  and  that  notice  of  the  action  of  this  board  be 
forthwith  given  to  said  William  C.  Traphagen. 

Which  on  motion  was  laid  on  the  table  until  the  next  meet- 
ing of  this  board  and  made  the  special  order  at  that  meeting. 

On  motion,  Resolved  (the  comptroller  dissenting),  that  the 
clerk  of  this  board  furnish  a  copy  of  the  said  preamble  and  re- 
solution to  William  C.  Traphagen,  and  also  inform  him  that  any 
communication  he  may  wish  to  make  to  this  board  be  submitted 
in  writing,  on  or  before  Wednesday,  April  1,  1874. 


(Signed.) 


Wm.  F.  Havemeyeb,  Mayor. 


38 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund* 
held  at  the  Comptroller's  office,  April  1,  1874.  Present, 

Wm.  F.  Havemeyer,  Mayor. 

John  K.  Hackett,  Recorder, 

Andrew  H.  Green,  Comptroller, 

Geo.  W.  Lane,  Chamberlain. 

J.  Van  Schaick.  Ch.  Fin,  Com.  B.  A. 

A  communication  was  received  from  Wm.  C.  Traphagen  in 
relation  to  the  preamble  and  resolution  submitted  by  the  Comp- 
troller at  the  last  meeting  to  receive  certain  proceedings  and 
action  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  July  25, 
1871.  which,  on  motion,  was  ordered  on  file. 

The  preamble  and  resolution  laid  over  at  the  last  meeting 
and  made  the  special  order  for  this  meeting,  were  taken  up  for 
action.  Whereupon  the  Comptroller  moved  to  strike  out  of  the 
resolution  the  words,  "  and  that  notice  of  the  action  of  this 
Board  be  forthwith  given  to  said  William  C.  Traphagan." 

The  Recorder  proposed  to  strike  out  of  said  resolution  the 
words  "purported  "  and  "  pretended,"  stating  his  reason  there- 
for, and  then  moved  that  the  preamble  and  resolution  be  referred 
to  the  counsel  to  the  corporation  for  his  opinion.  Whereupon 
the  chairman  of  the  finance  committee  of  the  Board  of  Alder- 
men submitted  as  a  substitute  the  following  resolution,  viz. ; 

Resolved,  That  the  communication  of  Mr.  Traphagen  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Mayor  to  inquire  into  the  right  of  this  commission 
to  abrogate  the  contract  heretofore  made  with  Mr.  Traphagan, 
regarding  water  grants,  etc.,  power  being  hereby  given  to  the 
Mayor  to  consult  with  .  the  corporation  counsel  or  other 
as  he  (the  Mayor)  may  elect,  which  was  not  adopted.  The 
Mayor,  Comptroller  and  Chamberlain  voting  in  the  negative, 
and  the  Recorder  and  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  of 
the  Board  of  Aldermen  in  the  affirmative. 

The  motion  of  the  Comptroller  to  strike  out  of  the  resolu- 
tion the  words  "  and  that  notice  of  the  action  of  this  Board  be 
forthwith  given  to  said  Wm.  C.  Traphagan  "  was  adopted.  The 
mayor,  Comptroller  and  Chamberlain  and  Chairman  of  Finance 
committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  voting  in  the  affirmative, 
and  the  recorder  in  the  negative.  On  motion,  the  preamble  and 
resolution  was  amended,  viz. : 


/ 


39 

WJtereas,  On  the  minutes  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
■sinking  fund  there  appears  a  writing  purporting  to  be  an 
agreement,  entered  into  on  the  20th  July,  1871,  between  the 
Commissioners  of  the  sinking  fund  and  one  Wm.  C.  Traphagan, 
relative  to  furnishing  information  in  relation  to  the  recovery  of 
-city  property,  held  adversely  to  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monalty of  the  city  of  New  York  ;  and, 

Whereas,  The  Commissioners  of  the  sinking  fund  are  of  the 
opinion  that  said  pretended  agreement  is  without  authority  of 
law,  and  wholly  inoperative  and  void,  and  that  if  said  pretended 
-agreement  were  to  be  deemed  and  held  binding  and  valid  and 
-effective  by  the  commissioners  the  interests  of  the  city  would 
be  greatly  embarassed  and  damnified,  and  great  loss  would 
accrue ;  and,  whereas,  the  said  pretended  agreement  would,  if 
held  valid,  afford  great  opportunities  for  oppressive  measures 
upon  innocent  parties  ;  therefore  be  it, 

Resolved,  That  a  certain  resolution  of  the  Commissioners  of 
•the  sinking  fund,  purporting  to  authorize  the  execution  of  such 
pretended  agreement  and  the  pretended  adoption  thereof  as  the 
act  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  sinking  fund  on  the  25th  day 
July,  1871,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  vacated  and  set  aside, 
•rescinded,  abrogated  and  canceled,  and  that  such  pretended 
agreement  is  hereby  declared  to  be  void  and  of  no  force  or  effect. 
Were  adopted.  The  Mayor.  Comptroller  and  Chamberlain 
noting  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  Recorder  and  Chairman  of  the 
-finance  committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  in  the  negative 

THE  EEPLY  OF  THE  ASSOCIATION. 

Immediately  upon  the  publication  of  Recorder  Hackett's 
-charge  to  the  Grand  Jury  the  following  communication  was  sent 
tio  it  by  the  Citizens'  Association  : 

Citizens'  Association  of  New  Yobk,  ) 
October,  13,  1868.  J 

'To  the  Foreman  and  Member*  of  the  Grand  Jury  of  the  County  of 
New  York. 

Gentlemen  :  The  Recorder  of  this  city,  Hon.  John"  K. 
Mackett,  having  in  his  charge  »to  you  on  Wednesday  last  ad- 


40 

dressed  you  on  the  subject  of- -the  Citizens'  Association  and  the 
work  in  which  it  has  been  engaged  for  the  -pasMive  years,  thus 
officially  calling  your  attention  to  the  association  and  its  labors, 
the  association  proceeds  to  lay  before  you  certain  matters  which 
deeply  concern  the  people  of  this  city  and  the  administration  of 
its  local  government.  But  first  the  association  would  call  your 
attention  to  the  following  remarks  made  by  the  Hon.  George  G. 
Barnard,  presiding  Justice  of  our  Supreme  Court,  in  the  course 
of  his  charge  to  the  Grand  Jury  of  this  county,  your  predeces- 
sors, assembled  before  him  while  he  was  holding  the  Court  of  Oyer 
and  Terminer  in  this  city.  Mr.  Justice  Barnard  said  to  the 
Grand  Jury  : 

"  I  had  intended,  gentlemen,  to  charge  you,  indeed,  I  had 
carefully  prepared,  with  the  intention  of  delivering  to  you  a 
charge  in  regard  to  the  offenses  which  arc  constantly  being  com- 
mitted in  the  city  of  New  York  by  public  officers,  but  on  reflec- 
tion I  have  concluded  to  suppress  it,  and  for  this  reason  :  No 
one  single  man  can,  unaided  and  alone,  fight  against  the  corrup- 
tions of  New  York  City.  I  have  determined  hereafter,  when  I 
have  information  or  seek  to  accomplish  anything  in  opposition 
to  this  bad  influence,  to  use  the  Citizens'  Association,  an  asso- 
ciation in  New  York  city  composed  of  gentlemen  of  wealth, 
of  intellect  and  of  sterling  integrity.  I  have  determined  to  use 
them  as  an  instrument  for  the  purpose  of  reforming  what  I  con- 
sider the  most  glaring  abuses  in  New  York  City  So  far  as  my 
Court  is  concerned — so  far  as  I  have  the  power,  by  injunction, 
mandamus  or  otherwise,  to  stop  these  abuses,  I  intend  to  do  it  ; 
but,  as  one  single  unaided  man,  I  shall  look  to  the  Citizens'  As- 
sociation for  aid  and  assistance." 

Since  the  delivery  of  this  charge  by  Justice  Barnard  the 
Citizen's  Association  has  steadily  pursued  the  course  it  had 
previously  followed  ;  has  rendered  aid  an£  assistance  to  all 
officials  who  have  striven  to  do  their  duty  honestly  ;  has  fought 
"  against  the  corruptions  of  New  York  city,"  and  has  persistently 
exposed  "  the  offences  which  are  constantly  being  committed  in 
the  City  of  New  York  by  public  officers,"  to  quote  Justice  Barn- 
ard's forcible  words,  but  the  association  now  feels  that  it  is  time 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  Grand  Jury  to  several  matters  of 
complaint  against  the  administration  of  the  local  government  in 
the  city  and  county  of  New  York.    The  association,  in  the  ex- 


41 


•ereise  of  that  sovereign  power  wjiich  inheres  in  the  people  by 
virtue  of  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  our  government 
is  based,  has  investigated  the  public  departments  of  this  city, 
has  followed  step  by  step  the  course  of  public  officers,  and  has, 
in  all  cases,  made  public  for  the  information  of  the  people  of 
this  city  who  are  directly  interested,  the  results  of  its  investiga- 
tions. The  association  finds  on  the  part  of  all  public  officers 
who  have  been  thus  exposed,  and  all  who  fear  exposure,  a  dis- 
position to  make  common  cause  with  each  other  to  defeat  the 
efforts  of  the  association.  The  Street  Commissioner,  George 
W.  McLean,  attacked  the  association,  and  the  Rocorder,  Hon. 
John  K.  Hackett,  immediately  followed  in  the  same  direction. 
The  association,  believing  that  no  more  important  subject  can 
engage  your  attention  as  a  Grand  Jury  than  "  the  offenses  which 
are  constantly  being  committed  in  the  city  of  New  York  by 
public  officers,"  to  use  Judge  Barnard's  words,  and  that  no  more 
important  duty  devolves  on  you  than  to  make  a  proper  present- 
ment of  such  official  misconduct,  would  respectfully  lay  before 
you  certain  facts.  The  Board  of  Supervisors  have  expended 
$4,350,000  on  building  a  Court-House  which  was  origninally  in- 
tended to  cost  but  $1,000,000,  and  have  done  this  by  extrava- 
gant contracts.  In  1867  the  Legislature  of  the  State  authorized 
the  sum  of  $800,000  to  be  raised  for  "  the  completion  of  "  the 
building  with  that  sum ;  but  in  violation  of  that  duty  the  Board 
of  Supervisors  neglected  to  complete  the  building  with  said 
sum. 

In  1868  the  legislature  authorized  the  sum  of  $800,000  to  be 
raised  for  "  the  completion,  fitting  up  and  furnishing  of  the  new 
courthouse  in  the  said  county,  now  near  completion,"  and  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  board  of  supervisors  to  complete,  fit  up  and  fur- 
nish the  building  with  that  sum ;  but  in  open  violation  of  the 
law  and  of  their  duty  the  board  of  supervisors  have  spent  the 
money  but  have  neglected  to  complete  and  furnish  said  building 
with  tk at  sum,  and  the  same  still  remains  very  far  from  being 
completed.  The  supervisors  have  also  expended  $600,000  in 
fitting  up  and  in  furnishing  with  costly  furniture,  frescoes  and 
other  extravagant  adornments,  hired  armories  for  the  use  of  th 
city  militia,  when  a  small  part  of  that  sum  would  have  amply 
sufficed  for  the  purpose.  The  association  calls  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  furnishing  the  armory  for  a  single  regiment 


42 


'die  board  of  supervisors  expended  in  four  months  the  sum  of 
$23,658.25,  and  that  this  amount  was  made  up  of  such  items  as 
"  forty-eight  walnut  chairs,  upholstered  in  green  reps  and  brass 
nails,  Fifth  Regiment  carved  on  back  and  gilt ;  for  board  of 
officers  at  $46  each,  $2,208  ;  one  black  walnut  desk  for  presiding 
officer,  $237  ;  one  black  walnut  secretary  desk,  $177  ;  ten  black 
walnut  cases  for  muskets  at  $677  each,  $6,776  ;  one  large  case 
for  centre,  $736,"  and  that  reference  is  made  to  the  document 
hereto  annexed  marked  "  A"  for  further  particulars  in  regard  to 
the  fitting  up  of  armories  and  drill-rooms. 

The  Recorder  did  not  charge  you  on  the  subject  of  the  expen- 
ditures made  by  corporation  counsel  O'Gorman  during  the 
twenty-two  months  from  January  1,  1866.  It  appears  that 
while  Mr.  O'Gorman  was  allowed  a  yearly  salary  of  $12,000 
and  was  allowed  $12,000  additional  yearly  for  clerks,  he  paid 
away  large  sums  to  extra  counsel  to  assist  in  doing  the  work  of 
his  office.  It  appears  that,  in  fact,  he  obtained  for  himself  a  fee 
of  $10,000,  in  addition  to  his  salary,  in  one  set  of  cases  in  which 
the  city  and  county  were  interested,  and  that  he  paid  to  the  Re- 
corder, Hon.  John  K.  Hackett,  about  $21,727.50  in  fees  for 
doing  part  of  the  work  of  the  corporation  counsel's  office,  al- 
though Mr.  Hackett  was,  from  March  6,  1866,  Recorder,  and 
drawing  in  such  capacity  as  salary  and  allowances  about  $15,000 
for  said  twenty-two  months. 

The  Recorder  did  not  charge  you  on  the  subject  of  his  de- 
manding and  receiving  for  himself  pay  as  Recorder,  for  a  period 
when  he  did  not  hold  the  office.  He  was  appointed  Recorder 
March  6,  1866,  and  yet  he  demanded  and  received  the  salary 
from  the  1st  of  January  preceding.  The  association  submits 
the  following  :  In  March,  1866,  an  application  was  made  by  a 
citizen  of  this  county  to  the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  allow  him 
to  inspect  the  papers,  records  and  accounts  pertaining  to  the 
construction  of  the  new  court-house.  He  could  not  see  them, 
however,  because  they  were  not  deposited  in  the  office  of  the 
clerk  of  tlie  board,  its  they  are  required  to  be  by  the  statutes  of 
this  State?  but  were  kept  in  the  private  possession  of  the  court- 
house committee.  He  therefore  applied  to  the  Supreme  Court 
for  it  mandamus  to  eompel  the  Supervisors  to  place  such  books, 
papers  and  accounts  in  their  clerk's  office,  to  be  there  open  to 
public  inspection,  as  the  law  of  the  State  directs.  Although 


43  * 


this  was  a  just  and  legal  request,  the  corporation  counsel  re- 
tained Hon.  John  K.  Hackett  at  an  expense  of  $100  (which  was 
paid  out  of  the  city  treasury),  to  appear  in  the  court  on  behalf 
of  the  supervisors  in  answer  to  this  mandamus.  All  that  Mr. 
Hackett  appears  to  have  done  for  his  $100  was  to  tell  the  court 
that  the  supervisors  would  obey  the  mandamus  and  put  the 
papers  in  their  clerk's  office.  The  association  submits  that  it  is 
an  improper  practice  and  calculated  to  bring  the  bench  into  dis- 
repute that  a  high  criminal  judge  should  be  permitted  to  receive 
while  serving  in  such  judicial  office  large  fees  from  other  depart- 
ments of  the  Government. 

The  association  submits  that  if  a  high  judicial  officer,  in 
addition  to  his  salary,  shall  be  permitted  to  receive  large  emolu- 
ments from  the  practice  of  the  profession  of  the  law  from  the 
co-ordinate  branches  of  government  he  may  become  more  ®r 
less  partial  in  viewing  the  conduct  of  the  officials  who  contribute 
so  largely  to  his  income,  and  mimical  to  all  persons  and  associa- 
tions striving  to  prevent  excessive  expenditure  of  the  public 
money.  The  association  submits  that  if  a  proper  respect  for 
Hie  dignity  of  the  bench  should  not  prevent  a  high  judicial  officer 
from  profiting  pecuniarily  from  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  local 
government,  the  Grand  Jury  should  present  the  fact,  in  the  hope 
ihat  such  presentment  may  work  a  reform.  The  association  also 
submits  that  the  Grand  Jury  should  present  for  the  information 
of  whom  it  may  concern  that,  although  in  England  the  public 
officer  is  the  servant  of  the  crown,  and  responsible  to  the  crown 
only,  in  this  country  the  public  officer  is  the  servant  of  the 
people,  and  as  such  servant  is  responsible  to  the  people  for  the 
proper  performance  of  his  duties  ;  and  also  that  it  is  not  only 
the  right  but  the  duty  of  every  citizen  to  exercise  the  most  vigilant 
watch  over  the  conduct  of  all  public  officials,  whether  legisla- 
tive, executive  or  judicial,  and  that  without  such  constant  super- 
vision incapable  and  dishonest  men  may  attain  to  the  highest 
positions  in  the  State,  and  even  the  courts  may  become  sanctu- 
aries for  fraud  when  dishonest  judges  may  use  their  power  for 
the  suppression  of  virtue,  the  encouragement  of  vice,  the  per- 
version of  official  morality,  and  for  private  gain. 

The  association  would  also  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  streets  of  this  city  are  now  and  have  been  for  several 
months  past  in  a  disgraceful  condition  of  pavement,  while  the 


4A 

P 

Street  Department,  of  which  George  W.  McLean  is  chief,  has 
paid  since  July  3,  1868,  and  still  continues  to  pay  $20,000  per 
month  to  a  contractor  for  the  alleged  purpose  of  keeping  the 
streets  in  repair  ;  also,  that  while  the  charter  of  this  city  re- 
quires all  work  over  $250  to  be  done  under  contract  with  the 
lowest  bidder,  the  same  department  has  expended  about  $300,- 
000  per  annum  on  the  roads  and  avenues,  wharves  and  piers, 
and  for  supplies,  &c.,  without  any  contract  as  required  by  law; 
also  that  the  same  department  has  in  and  about  the  repairing 
of  the  wharves  and  piers  hired  more  workmen  than  necessary  to 
make  the  repairs  made,  and  expended  many  times  as  much 
money  for  labor  as  the  work  should  have  cost ;  that  the  same 
department  has  hired  unneccessary  labor  during  the  election 
periods ;  also,  that  it  has  paid  for  34,000  pounds  of  spikes  and 
bolts  used  in  repairing  certain  wharves  and  piers,  nearly  double 
what  they  should  have  cost,  and  has  paid  for  the  lumber  it  used 
some  30  per  cent,  more  than  the  market  value  of  the  necessary 
material ;  also,  that  it  has  expended  many  thousand  dollars 
more  than  it  should  have  expended  in  such  repairing. 

The  association  would  also  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  association  was  compelled  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  the 
people  to  request  the  City  Chamberlain,  Mr.  Peter  B.  Sweeny  to 
pay  into  the  public  treasury  the  interest  which  he  received  on 
the  public  moneys  in  his  keeping ;  that  Mr.  Sweeny  claimed 
such  interest  as  his  own,  and  made  no  offer  to  do  as  the  associa- 
tion requested  ;  that  he  afterwards  concluded  to  comply,  and 
has  represented  that  he  has  paid  into  the  public  treasury  all 
such  interest,  amounting  so  far  to  about  882,000.  The  associa- 
tion would  request  that  by  reason  of  the  pretense  of  a  public 
officer,  who  is  a  mere  servant  of  the  people,  to  retain  the  interest 
received  on  the  public  money  while  in  his  hands,  in  the  face  of 
the  fact  that  he  receives  a  salary  of  about  $23,000  per  annum 
for  his  services,  the  Grand  Jury  should  present  the  fact  that  the 
Chamberlain  in  paying  over  this  profit  on  the  public  money  is 
not  presenting  a  gratuity  to  the  people  who  pay  for  his  services, 
but  is  merely  rendering  to  the  people  that  which  belongs  to 
them. 

The  association  would  also  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  every  year  city  officials  appear  at  Albany  and  strive  to  in- 
duce the  Legislature  to  make  larger  appropriations  than  are 


\ 


needed  to  carry  on  the  local  government,  thus  increasing  the 
yearly  taxes  ;  that  last  spring  the  agent  of  the  city  officials  be- 
coming exasperated  at  the  efforts  made  by  the  Citizens'  Associa- 
tion to  reduce  these  appropriations  declared  that  he  would 
advise  the  city  officials  next  year  to  ask  for  three  times  as  much 
as  they  needed.  As  this  gentleman  is  of  very  great  influence, 
and  holds  a  high  official  position,  it  is  possible  that  he  may 
induce  the  city  officials  to  commit  this  fraud  upon  the  people  of 
the  city  and  the  Legislature,  and,  therefore,  the  association 
would  respectfully  suggest  that  it  is  important  that  the  Grand 
Jury  shoidd  take  the  matter  summarily  in  hand,  and  by  a 
prompt  expression  of  opinion  on  the  supject  prevent  such  a 
scheme  from  being  carried  out. 

The  Citizens'  Association,  impelled  by  a  sense  of  the  duty 
which  it  owes  to  the  people  of  this  city,  will  continue  to  contest 
every  usurpation  on  the  part  of  officials,  to  arraign  them  before 
the  bar  of  public  opinion,  and  to  check  them  in  the  court  and 
in  the  Legislature.  The  association  most  respectfully  requests 
that  the  Grand  Jury  of  the  county  of  New  York  will  make 
due  and  proper  inquest  into  the  various  matters  brought  to  its 
notice,  and,  if  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  the  statements  made, 
present  these  various  abuses  in  such  a  way  as  to  its  wisdom  may 
seem  best  ,  calculated  to  procure  their  abatement. 
All  of  which  is  most  respectfully  submitted. 


i 


Ex  Eibrtfi 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


'When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever  thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


o^r  l_  it  a  s  i  36 

Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  Y<  >rk  Library 


